Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Horne: Divas in Song

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Horne: Divas in Song

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Marilyn Horne: Divas in Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article (apart for the pointless track by track listing) consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with you that the value of a track listing in an article about a recording of an opera or a symphony is debatable, but I think that in the case of a disc like this one, a track listing is almost essential. Surely we can't have articles about recordings of music without telling readers what the music is?Niggle1892 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1. The work was reviewed by Bernard Holland in The New York Times (see here), in Gramophone (magazine) (see here), and in the San Francisco Chronicle (see here).4meter4 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NALBUM ie. no. 1 (multiple independent reviews) with 3 reviews as listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2019 (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.