Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rightly So


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rightly So

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Coverage appears to be limited to blogs, with the sole exception being a review in HuffPost. The primary editor of this article also has a pretty clear, but technically undisclosed, conflict of interest with the subject based on the article's contents. signed,Rosguill talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 23:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. I'm fairly new here, can you point me to some documentation that would help me better understand what determines if something is promotional? Those sources appeared informational over promotional to me, especially if the tone and structure of the HuffPost article are considered acceptable. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This band has pages of Google results from a wide variety of sources with more than enough information to write a complete article. They have toured nationally, this isn't a "garage band" situation, it may just need to be expanded further. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you provide some examples of such coverage? Looking over the sources that you've added to the article, they look promotional, and thus likely are not usable for establishing notability. signed,Rosguill talk 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the criteria that need to be met are summarized at WP:GNG–most of the sources you provided were announcements of upcoming concerts or Q&A interviews, which are generally considered to be primary sources, as opposed to the secondary sources we need. Instead of concert announcements, I would suggest looking for album reviews (and concert reviews, although these are rarer). Interviews occasionally contain usable secondary coverage, which will be in the form of introductory paragraphs prior to the beginning of the interview, or extensive analysis that is clearly based on more than just the interviewee's answers to questions, longform style. When assessing source reliability for articles about music-related topics, generally a source is considered reliable if it has a fully professional editorial board, includes bylines for its articles, and the content isn't blatantly promotional. If you need more help, there's a list of reliable and unreliable sources curated by Wikiproject Albums that you can find at WP:A/S. signed,Rosguill talk 22:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. In that case I would argue that the following articles that are currently listed as sources meet the outlined criteia:

https://www.headstuff.org/entertainment/music/review-rightly-catharsis-vandura/ https://www.nashvillemusicguide.com/folk-duo-the-rightly-so-releases-vandura-to-rave-reviews/ - the second paragraph is a quote from the band, but below that there is a comprehensive review. https://www.forfolkssake.com/reviews/39086/album-the-rightly-so-vandura?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

These are all bylined, album review articles in publications that are run by teams of people, not individuals running blogs, nor do these seem like outright promotion. In that same vein I'd argue the following sources could be added as well:

https://www.music-news.com/review/UK/13976/Album/The-Rightly-So http://www.sidestagemagazine.com/rightly-sos-self-titled-album/

And third, although potentially not as compelling but still possibly relevant due to the publication, Jess Chizuk had lyrics published in American Songwriter (listed in WP:A/S) after placing in a Lyrics Contest, for a song that was also featured on The Rightly So's debut album.

https://americansongwriter.com/january-february-2016-lyric-contest-winners/

Still working on restructuring this to reflect using the improved sources, but the large majority of the content on the page currently is referenced in each of these links. Leeglynn7171 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete The Huffington Post author is a CONTRIBUTOR, and it is most definitely unacceptable, per WP:RSP. See "Huffington Post contributors". Graywalls (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. In reply to Graywallis, the Huffington Post is not "most definitely unacceptable per WP:RSP". Huff Post is actually listed on that page as no consensus and is, in fact, used as a source in thousands of articles.  I'm not sure what you meant by CONTRIBUTOR. WP:CONTRIBUTOR redirects to that part of WP:V dealing with newspaper blogs and users' comments.  Radic is a professional writer and the piece he wrote for Huffpost is neither a blog nor a user comment. SpinningSpark 23:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the capitalized "CONTRIBUTOR" was just for emphasis, not an allusion to a policy shortcut. HuffPost contributors (which Radic's article is listed as) have a separate entry from HuffPost in general at RSP, and is currently listed as generally unreliable, although if Radic is a generally respected journalist there may be an argument for considering this speciific article to be reliable. signed,Rosguill talk 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I missed that entry at RSP, but as you say, Radic probably qualifies under WP:SPS since he is published as a music journalist in multiple magazines. SpinningSpark 08:03, 8 June 2020 (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.