Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham University Chamber Choir


 * 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 of the debate was Keep with a possibility of a merge with Durham University. -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Durham University Chamber Choir
Essentially a vanity page for a choral group in Durham Uni - created and edited solely by someone whose username matches the initials of a present officer of the group Philip lawton 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 01:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as solely vanity. SorryGuy 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Durham University. -- JJay 02:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - NeoJustin 02:42, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might merit a mention on the university page.  Student groups change too frequently to update. Durova 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, no choral group has their own page.-->Newyorktimescrossword 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge with Durham University . This choir has toured internationally, which presumably makes them meet WP:MUSIC, but they don't appear to have released any CDs, if that is important. In either case there is no reason to reject this based on the fact that it is a university choir. Academic choirs are often among the main upholders of choral traditions (I know that to be the case in Sweden, at least) and, despite a dubious assertion by Newyorktimescrossword above, many choral groups do have their own articles on Wikipedia already. Category:Harvard University alone contains Holden Choirs, Radcliffe Choral Society, Harvard Glee Club, Harvard-Radcliffe Collegium Musicum, and Harvard-Radcliffe Chorus. Durova's comment above that "Student groups change too frequently to update" is also too generalizing and not based on any precedent as an argument for deletion – Wikipedia already has many articles on student organisations, and some last for centuries. u p p l a n d 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm modifying my vote to a "keep". It could possibly be merged with a page on student societies at Durham later, but the Durham University article is just too long for a merge. Many American universities have much cruftier stuff in their categories. u p p l a n d 13:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge --SockpuppetSamuelson 09:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Durham University. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 09:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Uppland Jcuk 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge info into university article. --Daveb 11:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Durham University Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main university page by being bold. -Rebelguys2 12:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge but Uppland makes a good case for Keep and I'd be happy with that too.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, they pass WP:MUSIC and are of interest to choral music fans more than university fans. Kappa 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep major music group like this at a major and historic university is importnat, even if the article was created by someone connected with the group.Evil Eye 16:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to main university page under a category there. -Mcjsfreak07 15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Durham University. -- ReyBrujo 01:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa. Lbbzman 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a bit of a vanity page...but - I go to Durham myself so I do know the group but the group is important - there are lots and lots of little groups like this in the university and merging it with the university as a precedent would give us lots of problems in the future because we would have to do this with lots of other groups. My suggestion (however humble) is to create a topic page entitled Category:Durham University Music Societies or even Category:Durham University Student Socities and place all student societies ( defined as 'affliated to the Student's Union' - in the case of Durham) in there, and link to it off the main page, and edit the main page accordingly. This might be a good way (as a precedent) of dealing with Student societies from any other university.--Luccent 12:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Further to what I said before...I had a root around on the categories to Durham University - the Univeristy itself has a category Category:University of Durham and we can put whichever category we want into that category. We then start to follow the example of Harvard - thanks to Uppland for showing that. We also have the secondary question of whether the article is worthy - I think it is - although when other student socities want to be added; I'm not sure how worthy 'Durham University Neighbours Society will be! :s --Luccent 12:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per kappa --Jethro2809 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Author Comment It's a shame you feel this qualifies as vanity. Although presently an officer of the choir, it was there before, and I also assume it will be after my tenure, and the article is not associated specifically with the present time or activities. The article is there because I genuinely believe the bredth of university information is enhanced by it's presence. The Chamber Choir has been in existence within the university for over seventy years (although not always as a student society) and as thus probably can be deemed more important than the neighbours soc. Thank you for your attention to the matter Phillip, I hope you've found some time to do some organ practise. --nde575 01:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. International tours makes it notable per WP:MUSIC. As an ongoing institution, more notable than many short-lived rock bands we have. Herostratus 03:13, 4 January 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.