Talk:Twickenham Choral Society

Notability and self interest

Thanks @Velella: for bringing my attention to the weaknesses in this post; I can fix perceptions of self-interest but I can't cure notability, which is perceptual at the outset and just a matter of daily hits thereafter (which are not exactly stellar). I came to the topic through Christopher Herrick, then through the choir's centenary. I noted how leading composers of the day (Iain Farrington and Roxanna Panufnik) chose the choir to premier their work. I then compared and interviewed five choral societies (Twickenham, Teddington, Hampton and East Molesey choirs) and spoke to the heritage trust based in Richmond and sure enough - this choir came out on top as the only auditioned choir and that indeed, this choir was notable as being the oldest in SW London - potentially the oldest amateur choir in England and is celebrated by local heritage groups. I believed and still believe this confers notability on the choir. My sources of information were inevitably from the choir itself (although I used the Kingston Choral Society to guide tone), which can be adjusted (I can take down the list of performances, remove Governance and generally tone down the inherited appearance of self-interest). But none of that will make any difference if notability isn't there. Should I make the attempt to change the entry or will it make no difference in the end? I would appreciate your guidance on this. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Velella: - I guess you have much more pressing matters but in the interests of keeping this live, I have tracked down some legacy reviews, which may contribute to the sense of notability. What is intriguing is that whereas local press agencies used to have regular reviews featuring local activities, in the last 5 years or so, these have moved to social media, which of course are inadmissible. But perhaps that is your point - local notability does not convert global interest.

I have attempted to resolve @Velella:'s challenges by including 6 review citations (opinion from third parties independent of the subject) and have removed the performance record to resolve the impression that the article is self-serving. But of course evidence of notability can emphasise the impression of self-interest (evidence of notability and the appearance of promotion are mutually reinforcing), so you can get tied up in knots. My opinion (my only content knowledge is that I am a music fan who lives in the Richmond Borough) is not important, so I would really appreciate your view on this.

Banners removed in the absence of objection

Revised banner September 29th, 2022

Hi@Onel5969: - would you be available to comment on the brief narrative above to help elevate the discussion to an action? Many thanks in lieu.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the depth and breadth of the sourcing. You've done a fine job on providing references to meet WP:VERIFY, so it becomes a question of notability. Primary sources (anything associated with the choir itself) does not count towards notability. Also, interviews, even if in an independent source, are considered primary sources, so they bear no weight toward notability either. Another bar to cross is the concept of WP:ORGDEPTH, which means you have to have more than local coverage. So articles from the Surrey Comet and the Richmond and Twickenham Times don't help with notability. Others, you have those which are just mentions, with no in-depth coverage, like the Noel Coward biography. The Musical Times is a nice reference, but I can't access it, so do not know how in-depth it is. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:It certainly does help - I always struggle as an editor or author with notability because I tend towards the inclusive (I find the inside of a ping-pong ball interesting) but I do concede that Wikipedia is not a directory and that Wikipedia is not so much interested in the Twickenham Choral Society so much as why any amateur choir might be of interest to people seeking enlightenment by searching on Wikipedia. I am lucky in that I am not directly invested in this particular Society but I am in the community (hopefully not a problem) and know how much the choir is appreciated and has acquired notability amongst its peers, particularly in the year of its unrivaled centenary. Notability is, at its core, about exceptionalism and if that doesn't shine through in the article, then it should be challenged. I took down its performance record to make it less like self-promoting but in a way that takes out the exceptional, which is why I borrowed from Aesop (you can often judge a person by the company he keeps) and included all the notable people (like Noel Coward) who are associated with the Society. I take the hit on sourcing however and will seek to enrich it. I was encouraged to attend a concert given by the choir last week in London's West End, to a standing ovation and an encore (which is unusual in a classical setting for choirs). Sometimes notability is just transitory, unnoticed and experienced by the few but nonetheless rich for all that. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

REVIEW banner, October 2nd, 2022

Thanks @GeoffreyT2000: for contributing to the discussion about notability by reviewing and challenging. I am looking for independent sources from European tours of the choir to see if this might provide the endorsement required for notability. However, I have to acknowledge the fact that public performance for the last 10 year have been critically reviewed and broadcast on social media (non-admissible in Wikipedia) having now moved away probably permanently from traditional media sources, which I only discovered myself when reviewing this article (interesting to watch it change over the last 100 years). Any further guidance from yourself would be greatly appreciated.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: forgive my inexperience with the review process but the banner requires reliable secondary independent sources, which have now been supplied. Might this satisfy the challenge or is a review itself rhetorical (this is not a rhetorical questions so please respond if you have a moment)?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, after a reasonable period of adjustment and with no response from @GeoffreyT2000:, I have once again removed the banner.Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)