Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Door


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Beautiful Door

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unclear of the notability here, though I think I'm leaning not (and merge/redirect to the artist, of course). The article only has an AllMusic review, valid but not enough on its own, and the other coverage I could find was this blurb from Express and a few paragraphs in Thornton's autobiography. I don't know if Express is reliable, though it was a publication of The Washington Post so I wouldn't see why not, and though the piece is short, it's not entirely insubstantial. As for the autobiography, I have no idea what that does in regards to notability given I'm pretty sure it's entirely a primary source. This really doesn't seem like much all told, but perhaps it's just me being less favorable than most to a bare minimum pass as often seems to be the case. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs,  and California. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 12:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I really can't understand why this page should be deleted.
 * If we need to be sure that this album actually exists, I bought it and I can share a picture of... well, everything.
 * It's part of Thornton's story and work, why should we delete it?
 * Please read my contribution not as a critic, but as a real "desire" to undestand and, if needed, to rewrite this page/part of this page in a better way. 151.67.113.137 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a concern of notability, not just whether it exists. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 13:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is everything that the nominator indicates, which may have been considered enough. + this (The Oklahoman).+this +this and this or this (and that's just a one-click search......) I'm inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw this. Thanks.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - It didn't get much mass media notice, which is a bit of a surprise for a famous actor with a side career in music, but the reviews found by the previous voter are enough to build a basic stub article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's talked about here, but I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey....- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  11:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can't deny how much Mushy Yank has improved this one. Even if the lack of recognizable sources which have been added makes me slightly hesitant, I was also hesitant to launch this AfD in the first place because it was an edge case, and I can't deny it's been massively improved since then. If anyone else, such as Oaktree, still don't see it, then they can relaunch a new AfD whenever it's appropriate, but for now I am withdrawing. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.