Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/Lighthill Music
__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 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)
This article fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for music groups WP:BAND and general notability WP:GNG. This group was only founded in 2023, has received only limited media attention, with no significant coverage establishing their lasting impact or importance.
To meet WP:GNG, they would have had to have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources. The coverage of Lighthill Music is limited and consists mostly of routine news reports about their formation and collaborations. Below is an evaluation of the sources currently available:
| Source | Type | Independent? | Reliable? | Depth of Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tribune Online | Nigerian news outlet | No | No | Moderate | Features an article discussing Lighthill Music's mission and impact. ([tribuneonlineng.com](https://tribuneonlineng.com/lighthill-music-meet-the-leading-community-in-gospel-music-industry/)) |
| Vanguard | Nigerian newspaper | No | No | Brief | Reports on collaborations with artists like Mercy Chinwo. |
| Independent Nigeria | News platform | Yes | Yes | Moderate | Highlights the group's growth and community engagement. |
| Leadership News | Nigerian news outlet | Yes | Yes | Brief | Mentions partnerships for talent discovery. |
| The Sun Nigeria | Nigerian newspaper | Yes | Yes | Brief | Discusses the group's influence in Afro-fusion gospel music. |
None of these sources provide the in-depth, non-routine, coverage required for WP:GNG. The articles mainly discuss the group’s mission and collaborations rather than offering substantial analysis or historical context.
Lighthill Music also fails WP:BAND, which requires:
Multiple non-trivial published works about the group – The sources available are routine coverage, not detailed analyses or profiles.
Significant national or international recognition** – No major awards, high-profile recognitions, or industry-wide impact.
There are no charting albums, hit singles, or significant streaming figures. There is no evidence of participation in high-profile festivals, tours, or concerts The group is newly established and has not demonstrated any impact on music.
I believe that this page should be Deleted because it doesn't meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant, independent, in-depth coverage, nor do they meet WP:BAND, as they lack chart success, major performances, and industry influence. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC) 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "vote" in this context? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 07:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi enwiki contributor would you mind clarifying what you mean by vote? I'm still not clear on what this means in this context. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 22:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete I nominated this page for deletion and I would like to address some of enwiki contributor'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.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Could the closing administrator please discard this comment that enwiki contributor has kindly and diligently struck through for me. I have elaborated on my feelings in a new comment below. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- OK then fair enough. Let's assess the subject against the WP:SNG for bands. SNG is prospective in that if a band has received a lot of airplay or won an award then the changes are that Kerrang! or the NME will probably feature them at some point. So while SNG is subject-specific it's still geared towards creating a quality tertiary source by combining secondary sources. SNG is not a reason to synthesise a secondary source from primary sources because WP simply doesn't publish original research. That said I am happy to discuss c1, 6,8,11 and 12 of WP:BAND to see if this article could remain live under SNG. So, let's look at c1 first shall we?
- C1 of BAND - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
- *Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
- Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
- Could you please present some sources to verify your posit that this subject meets C1?
- Also, can you see how the SNG at BAND is still geared towards establishing GNG? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 22:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)