Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Moretto

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. This is a WP:BLP that cites no reliable (or other) sources even after 7 days of AfD, which makes deletion mandatory. In addition, rough consensus is that the person is not notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if I see you again making severe personal attacks against others in AfDs I wil block you from editing; consider yourself warned. Sandstein 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Moretto

[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)

A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Deprodded with no sources added nor any explanation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original contributor has the same username as the subject. I added a COI tag but this has been removed without explanation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article subject fails all notability checks. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator, don't lie in your deletion rationale. You did not place a PROD tag on the article. You placed a BLPPROD tag on the article, even though it clearly included sources in the form of external links, which made it ineligible for BLPPROD. And I clearly stated that the reason for my removal was "obviously invalid BLPPROD", which accurately described your nomination to a T. Your "nor any explanation" slur was not a comment an honest, competent editor could have made. Similarly, your COI tag was ridiculous. The editor you complain of made one edit, thirteen years ago. Their text has been entirely removed and replaced. They are not a "major contributor" to the current article, and a single, discarded COI edit thirteen freaking years ago is no reason to flag an article for an "issue" that has already been resolved. Any reasonable editor would understand this. Your WP:BEFORE search practices are dreadfully inadequate, as demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Houston (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards. Receiving a Guggenheim Fellowship is evidence of notability, and winning one in the pre-internet era may make online searching less productive, but does not diminish the significance; a longstanding academic position at CUNY is evidence of notability and stature in their primary field; a "distinguished alumnus" page at a university of Columbia's stature is evidence of notability. Just saying "no evidence" while closing your eyes to evidence in plain sight is not constructive editing. Keep absent any convincing analysis of evidence of notability and where that evidence may lead, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, you have still failed to provide any sources that help claim notability. Secondly, I always complete WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDSTATS shows that the community agree with around 75% of my AfD nominations - not a bad rate. You did not provide adequate explanation for your deprodding, nor added any sources which would indicate notability. If you can provide reliable secondary sources, then I will be the first to consider them and add them to the article as per WP:HEY. Please work with me and not against me, and assume good faith at all times. Insults and slurs will not help Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You mentioned the Guggenheim Fellowship, this has been the subject of a separate discussion which suggests it’s not a very good indicator of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any reliable sources. It is time we stopped sourcing articles from non-reliable sources. Muscian articles are not as bad for this as are actor and actress articles, but we should not accept it in either. We really need a "no reliable sources" prod that can only be removed if one source that is not a database we have not said is unreliable is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not privvy to the events that lead to nomination, but I'm here to comment on the notability merits of this individual. There appear to be a considerable number of mentions, particularly in Argentinian media. These mentions, however, are not significant, i.e. wholly about this individual, but rather his involvement in several projects. There are some print sources available as well. If these, put together, could amount to a decent WP:MUSIC claim, I may be convinced. I just need a more thorough presentation of sources. As of now I am on the fence. You have to admit we are dealing with a niche cosmos in Argentinian Jazz. PK650 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 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.