The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The article appears to have been largely written and maintained by two SPAs, who I assume are associated with its subject. Most of the content is a match for their website, and so a possible COPYVIO. I looked for sources to see whether it could be improved, but can find very little independent stuff online: one hit in the local press, which looks like a rehashed press release; a short review of a concert,again in the local press, with very little information about the choir; another short review by the same author, again in the local press and again with very little information; and a no-longer-available interview with the conductor of the choir on local radio (BBC Radio Oxford). Based on the sources I've been able to find, I don't think that the subject passes WP:GNG. There are some claims in the article about winning some awards at choral competitions, which if verified could arguably constitute a pass under WP:NBAND criterion 9, but I'm not confident that the competitions could fairly be described as "major music competitions", and I can't see any independent reporting of the wins. Girth Summit (blether) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)