Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockton Symphony Orchestra


 * 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   keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Brockton Symphony Orchestra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A community-vased orchestra in a city of 90,000 is not likely to be notable; all the references are local.  DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. With lots of significant coverage in The Boston Globe, I don't view all of the references as being local. Source examples include:, , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Hrm ... given that there are over forty national capitals with a population smaller than Brockton's, that alone is no reason to delete, and nom's suggestion to that effect is entirely subjective. Article is well-referenced by several daily newspapers, and the Boston Globe has national scope -- this isn't a case of an article exclusively sourced by a local free weekly rag.   Ravenswing   09:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – well referenced with significant coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment for small towns and cities near major international cities, information about local events often appears in the large city's newspapers. This creates some difficulty as compared with towns that do not have such nearby papers. The NYT covers NYC local events, and even though it is my city, I do not consider all of them therefore significant, DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 December 2013 (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.