Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuela Bellezza (singer)

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. Between this article and the draft version, there seems to be enough to establish notability. Merging the versions and whatnot can be discussed on their respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuela Bellezza (singer)

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

Still nothing at all actually suggestive of independent notability with none of the listed sources being substantial and my searches finding nothing better. I nearly PROded but went with AfD in case it's removed. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Emanuela Bellezza exists, but it was created by a completely different user on 22 March. ~~It has not yet been submitted for review.~~ It has been submitted for review. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As another note, the page has been moved (back?) to Emanuela Bellezza (and I've updated my earlier statement). Primefac (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. All albums are self released and she does not belong to a label. However, do NOT speedy delete, as CSD A7 is clearly not applicable. Safiel (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:Emanuela Bellezza to distinguish from the current draft. From there, someone can merge the two drafts into a single submission for review. The other draft has too many non-independent citations to be workable but I'd rather do that than delete something that someone will likely need to use in another draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As provided by the drafter for the other drafts, you can find significant coverage such as this page about her. As such, it's above an A7 but may or may not be enough for right now. Thus, I'm suggesting a middle ground. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other draft: Draft:Emanuela_Bellezza is much more comprehensive, and maybe just popping this content in at the bottom would be the thing to do. I noticed that the draft was declined with the rather absurd reason "article already exists on wikipedia." Once there, that editor and whoever is working on this one can compare notes, do cleanup and see if they can get it ready for prime time. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between the sources in LA Weekly [1], and the Italian newspaper Sanremo News [2], I'm satisfied that there's enough reference material to support an article. And from two separate continents, at that. Both of these references are substantially about Bellezza and not just name drops or passing mentions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator of the competing draft article appeared in #wikipedia-en-help several times, hoping to get this live article deleted so that her "better draft" could take its place. There may be some conflict-of-interest issues here, and possible involvement with the artist herself. Regardless, the creators of both the live article and the competing draft article have fallen silent, so I opted to research the artist myself, and I did some serious pruning and verification. Scottyoak2 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The articles at Living Out Loud, Caracol 1260, LA Weekly, and All Indie Magazine meet the requirement for multiple independent coverage. (I don't think the article in Sanremo News was authored by the publication. It appears to be a press release with editorial review.) However, none of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC are clearly satisfied. There have been accolades, but I wouldn't consider them major awards. Scottyoak2 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More information, references and more bibliography added to the article. July 23rd, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyskate1234 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 July 2016‎ (UTC) comment moved to bottom of discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and found even more sources about the artist. In my opinion, now the criteria #1, #2, #9, #10, #11, #12 are satisfied for WP:NMUSIC. (I explain here why I think they are: #1 multiple articles from independent sources, #2 Song "Ella Se Va" placed in radio in Venezuela and in national charts of that country, #9 finalist for the John Lennon Songwriting Competition, #10 Univision, MTV and all other TV stations mentioned in article, #11 Same as above - radio and TV, #12 same as above). In my opinion, this article should not be deleted, because it meets many of the requirements. -- JohnC12 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view this page should be kept as it follow the guidelines and has good references. Page is orphan but it is not a big problems as most of the newly created pages are orphan.New baba (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (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.