Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'illusion: The Houdini Musical

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'illusion: The Houdini Musical[edit]

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

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

It is rather self-promotional content, created by one person, who seems to be closely related to the topic. He/she also created and dramatically expanded a few articles to the same group of people around this project. Essentially, does not meet any of: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). The subject of the article was able to get less than 1K views on YouTube, a google search returns almost no content other than this article and the project's website. Recommend deletion. Thank youKolma8 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Bálint Varga, another AfD, into this article, or a new article that captures all of the info about the musical and playwright in one place. This article in particular shows some good research and attention to detail. It may well be that Hungarian-language sources are available, but all in all this appears to be a good encyclopedia piece worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Concertmusic - there is no Hungarian articles about this audiobook or Mr. Varga. Also, I am not sure if this audiobook qualify for a musical, but certainly released as an audiobook/album per its website. I still do not see how it meets notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.

- 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 the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.

- Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.

3. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.

4. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

5. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

6. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

As of now it fails all of the above. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 24 December 2020 (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.