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. A procedural close of an erroneous and disruptive nomination. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) dxneo (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthill Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I keep wondering from your source assessment, All articles seams neutral, clearly are reliable, independent of the subject or crew and of course the multiple secondary sources some up to give an independent significant coverage, what’s more to a crew, it meets all basic points Per WP:GNG, All reliable sources WP:NGRS. Here are more sources here [1], [2] and [3]

This gospel group has been in operation since 2021 as stated but I think it’s launch was 2023 and there is no law stating that notability can’t be built within few years. Below is a reference. ^[1]

Alright that’s all for now. Gratefulking (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Delete per my nom𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Could the closing administrator please discard this comment that user:Gratefulking has kindly and diligently struck through for me. I have elaborated on my feelings in a new comment below. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:GDX420, You nominated the article, therefore you cannot vote twice, Thanks Gratefulking (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "vote" in this context? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article, so you can’t drop a vote on this discussion twice that’s why I striked your vote. Rather a comment. Gratefulking (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:::I'm still not quite sure what you mean? Are we having a discussion or was there an RfC to turn AfD into a formal ballot that I somehow missed. Would it placate you if I accompany my Delete comment with a note to the closing admin reminding them that I opened this AfD just in case it isn't already obvious? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 07:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC) :::Hi User:Gratefulking would you mind clarifying what you mean by vote? I'm still not clear on what this means in this context. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 22:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Delete I nominated this page for deletion and I would like to address some of Gratefulking's points. Firstly, discussions about the perennial reliability of many of the sources at WP:NGRS are ongoing but my understanding is that the current consensus is to consider each source on a source by source basis like how we do with say The Daily Telegraph or the Mirror. If we're citing something like Le Figaro which has been in circulation for nearly two centuries, and has a reputation to lose and is accountable to press-standards committees etc then we can be fairly confident that they're going to fact check their stories and print apologies or amend the record when they're wrong. It has a center right stance much like The Times but as editors we are aware of that and can therefore parse fact from opinion. My issue with this source is that as encyclopaedists it doesn't really give us much to work with. If I've been mellowing out and strumming my guitar and decide that I would like to visit Wikipedia to read about music then I want to learn about the musician's backstories, I want to know what equipment they used and I want to know all of this within a broader ontological context. I want to learn what the artist's inspirations and influences were and what their legacy is. This article has the same issue, how does this translate into engaging encyclopaedic content without significant synthesis of this primary source material. Moreover, it's just a paraphrased version of the Guardian Source that you just mentioned which as far as I'm concerned rendered both sources unreliable. If a publication has so much disregard for it's journalistic integrity that it will happily publish spun or paraphrased articled then I just don't see what that source can really offer us. Ultimately, WP's articles are only as good as the sources they are based on. If, and I believe this is the case with LightHill Music, a Wikipedia editor pieces together a whole encyclopaedia entry via the synthesis of primary source material then they have created a secondary source via the very definition of a secondary source. Furthermore, a secondary source by its very nature posits original research because it's an exploration of the primary material on that subject. Wikipedia is not a secondary source, it doesn't publish original research or journalism, yes the editors who work on breaking stories use primary sources very carefully but the caveat is that the use of primary sources is supposed to be a temporary measure until secondary reportage emerges as we move further from the fact. This source is a dead link so you would need to find an archived version if you want me to consider it. I cannot help but feel like trying to establish notability as though it were a numbers game just leads to low quality articles that don't really evolve over time. They start as list-esque articles and they grow into longer articles akin to a list. If you feel that I've got this all wrong and there are indeed high quality sources that provide high quality editorially moderated content about this artist then I'd like to see them because I would always rather find an ATD than see an article deleted. But the quality and integrity of this encyclopaedia should be at the forefront of our minds while discussing whether this subject should be included here.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I must say you again @GDX420, you nominated this article for deletion, it’s not a article of an artist, secondly, there is no dead link, achieves where used when necessary and google won’t index all articles that ever Exists on the internet always, a dead link is a broken link or a link that can’t be accessed through public server, a dead link does not open swiftly, majority of the content has an editorial byline, and in addition why will you participate with a “Delete” vote after you deliberately outline everything on your deletion nomination, which gives a 60% Reliable and independent assessment, I’ll have to strike your “Delete”later, because you have already participated. I saw that you took your time on 21st February to nominate multiple articles for deletion within a short period of time, but let’s see what others think.

once again review the points on WP:GNG

also review Point 1, 6, 8, 11, 12 Points per WP:BAND

I’m sure this article have survived serval months and reviewers have patrolled on it and didn’t find much issues, It has met about few criteria to be included on Wikipedia, therefore I still stand to say it’s eligible unless multiple editors think otherwise. Gratefulking (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read “ This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries”

• Newspaper articles are checked, print and online versions.

Gratefulking (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2025 (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.