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.
No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only claim of significance made for him in the article is that he was the keyboardist at a Grammy-winning performance by Olga Tañon, but I find no evidence that that brought him any note. Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO.
Largoplazo (
talk)
17:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: If there is notability here, it relies on the subject's involvement in
Olga Tañón's "Olga Viva, Viva Olga" live album. However the named recipients of the award were the artist and engineers
[1] so notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED. A musician going about his business, but not enough for
WP:MUSICBIO or broader
WP:BASIC criteria for biographical notability.
AllyD (
talk)
11:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The former link is to a "coming events" announcement in a local publication. These are considered routine and don't contribute to notability.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Those sources don't contribute to notability. The former is another "coming events" link for a local theater. The latter link leads to a ticket seller, which is by no means an
independent source; in addition, the fact that people find work in their jobs and that, in the case of performers, you can buy tickets to their performances also doesn't establish notability.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Interviews are generally held not to be independent sources since they consist of the subject talking about himself. Further, if the paper routinely interviews performers only as they appear on stage locally and otherwise never talks about them, then it's routine coverage. The El Vocero article? Half a sentence isn't significant coverage, as notability requires.
Largoplazo (
talk)
09:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give more participants an opportunity to evaluate the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
King of♥♦♣ ♠
05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm honestly surprised that this keeps being relisted (actually, I've been doing AfD too many years to be surprised at all), given that the relistings seem a clear example of headcount-over-policy. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with notability standards should know that casual mentions do not satisfy any of them. Articles consisting solely of interviews of the subject do not satisfy any of them. Single-sentence "articles" do not satisfy any of them. Coming events announcements do not satisfy any of them. I have no idea upon what basis any editor can claim "It seems he's influential," but the subject plainly does not meet the GNG, and certainly meets no SNG.
Ravenswing 09:02, 17 March 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.
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.
No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only claim of significance made for him in the article is that he was the keyboardist at a Grammy-winning performance by Olga Tañon, but I find no evidence that that brought him any note. Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO.
Largoplazo (
talk)
17:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: If there is notability here, it relies on the subject's involvement in
Olga Tañón's "Olga Viva, Viva Olga" live album. However the named recipients of the award were the artist and engineers
[1] so notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED. A musician going about his business, but not enough for
WP:MUSICBIO or broader
WP:BASIC criteria for biographical notability.
AllyD (
talk)
11:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The former link is to a "coming events" announcement in a local publication. These are considered routine and don't contribute to notability.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Those sources don't contribute to notability. The former is another "coming events" link for a local theater. The latter link leads to a ticket seller, which is by no means an
independent source; in addition, the fact that people find work in their jobs and that, in the case of performers, you can buy tickets to their performances also doesn't establish notability.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Interviews are generally held not to be independent sources since they consist of the subject talking about himself. Further, if the paper routinely interviews performers only as they appear on stage locally and otherwise never talks about them, then it's routine coverage. The El Vocero article? Half a sentence isn't significant coverage, as notability requires.
Largoplazo (
talk)
09:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give more participants an opportunity to evaluate the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
King of♥♦♣ ♠
05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm honestly surprised that this keeps being relisted (actually, I've been doing AfD too many years to be surprised at all), given that the relistings seem a clear example of headcount-over-policy. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with notability standards should know that casual mentions do not satisfy any of them. Articles consisting solely of interviews of the subject do not satisfy any of them. Single-sentence "articles" do not satisfy any of them. Coming events announcements do not satisfy any of them. I have no idea upon what basis any editor can claim "It seems he's influential," but the subject plainly does not meet the GNG, and certainly meets no SNG.
Ravenswing 09:02, 17 March 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.