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. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Metropolitan Dance Company[edit]

Houston Metropolitan Dance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding enough non-local sourcing to indicate that this dance company satisfies WP:N, specifically the portion that requires sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. While there is some press, it is all from the Houston area, which means it fails WP:AUD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most coverage is in either Dallas, Houston, or Austin newspapers, but in addition to two feature articles in Dance informa magazine (one on the company itself [1] and one on its youth company [2]), it's garnered more-than-passing-mention coverage in nationwide sources Dance Magazine [3]—probably the most popular U.S. dance magazine—and Dance Spirit [4]. In addition, there's plenty of coverage in regional and statewide sources, including Arts + Culture Texas (statewide) [5][6][7][8][9][10] and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (serving Western North Texas) [11][12]. These sources range from almost five years to only a few months old, with consistent coverage in between. For finding more sources, note that the company goes by "METdance" these days.

Overall, WP:AUD's requirement that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary is more than adequately met. FourViolas (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "necessary" is entirely different from "sufficient." -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states, "not (exists at least one more-than-local source) implies not notable"; the converse, "(exists at least one more-than-local source) implies notable," isn't logically entailed, but is presumed to hold since WP:GNG is met. If the AUD guideline were meant to include some stricter standard, it would have to be specifically stated. In any case, it would be unreasonable to require more than 12 such sources. FourViolas (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the necessary bit is covered as per FourViolas, and the sufficient part is covered by myriad acceptable soures as provided. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given that there are sources beyond local news coverage, the rationale for the AfD is not valid. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.