Deletion of The Classic Metal Show

Comment: I suspect the claims that Blabbermouth.net is an unreliable source is based on prejudice for the simple fact that it refuses to conform to the mainstream, although if you dig deep the extreme small size of the staff could raise more genuine concern (although I am pretty convinced from long use that it seems consistantly reliable). However, the real problem with it is that it is notorious for covering literally ''anything'' relevant, regardless of actual newsworthyness, and the examples given in the article are evidence of just that; although it is actually kinda handy to have every interview from bands you like go through one source, it hardly nontrivial coverage makes in its own right. There is no real other claim to notability other than having gathered such 'controversial' statements, and besides, even if we call this nontrivial coverage, and ignore the fact that anything that does interviews will get passing media attention every so often with a decent one, there ''still'' isn't much else around in the way of relaible, third-party nontrivial sources. In short, a failure of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: hosting details aside, there are still concerns with this source.  It appears to be self published.  Are there other, more reliable sources for this information?   tells us ''if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)