Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamber Singers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber Singers

Non-encyclopedic blabbering. Probably written by a, eh, Chamber Singer. --Missmarple 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of this could theoretically be merged into choir under the amateur section, though a lot of it doesn't seem to make much sense and probably isn't verifiable -- especially given the weasely out of "The information above depends on the schools." A merge probably wouldn't do much good. --FreelanceWizard 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — They exist, and they are WP:Vable. Ask me on my talk if you don't want to go through the search engine hits. 364,000 for google, 397,000 for Yahoo, 74,100 for ask.com, 68,307 for MSN. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed they do exist, as members of a particular type of choir. I certainly wouldn't argue that, being an ex-choir person myself. :) However, if you eliminate the POV and not likely verifiable statements in the article ("A separate choir in which has a great deal of talent. This choir is compiled of many great talented singers" and "The person is most likely a great or above singer" are examples), what you end up with is a dictdef, more or less, and that could be merged into choir if it isn't effectively there already. When I last read choir, it seemed that the key bits of information contained in this article were already there. So, IMO, unless someone can substantially expand this article to really bring it past dictdef status and to include non-POV, verifiable information to clearly separate chamber choirs from concert choirs in a way that warrants their own article, I'm still leaning towards delete. Mostly, I'm rather skeptical that, given the "the information above depends on the schools" quote, that one could show any difference except in some schools that just don't want to call their choirs "intermediate" and "advanced" or, perhaps more commonly, "chorus" and "choir." --FreelanceWizard 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a child wrote this. Reasons as comment directly above. --Ricaud 08:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per FreelanceWizard.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - removing the POV statements, there is nothing left really. I don't see how this would expand any beyond a dicdef. -- Whpq 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.