Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Cedeño

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 both due to insufficient/trivial mentions in reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L. Cedeño & Bliss Wishes[edit]

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

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

There is nothing in either article that tells me that the subjects are actually notable for inclusion. Along with apparent WP:BLP and WP:COI issues (author User:Etrangere has admitted to being involved with the subject), I'm not even sure if this passes WP:MUSIC, nor does the related article (an album by the artist). All of the references in the first article are trivial mentions or user-oriented websites (Last.fm and AllMusic). These websites do not even have any content on them other than track names and release dates. And the news article used for a reference does not even mention the subject. The article on the album is even worse. It's just a tracklist with a reference for the release date.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with deletion. The article only mentions the things that make this artist notable. Specifically it notes the characterizations and description as mentioned by NPR, which is a viable, editorial source. Also, the link to NPR does mention the artist. As a matter of fact, the linked story is specifically and exclusively about the artist, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't mention the artist. As for the related album - that is the album that is noted in the linked article. As stated NPR, is a viable, editorial, notable source. There is no original research contained in this article.
Allmusic is a viable source from the inquiries and research I've done here on Wikipedia. Allmusic is used as a source in a great many articles here. Still, if it's not a viable source according to consensus I will remove it. As for the rest of the links being user-related. They're not related to me - they're related to the artist in question. I agree that Myspace is not a viable source and should be removed.
I think instead of removing this article it should be improved with better sources and more description of what makes the artist notable. Since I wrote the article I'm not sure if my opinion counts here but I will gladly attempt to improve the article in hopes that in can be retained. Etrangere (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Etrangere, you have an emotional and fiscal stake in the retention of this page on Wikipedia. This website is not for advertising.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to above - As the author I'd like to keep the article but I don't have a "Fiscal" nor an "emotional" stake in the outcome. What don't you get about - I'm not the subject of the article? If I'm not mistaken - editors who contribute articles are invited to take part in these discussions. If I'm wrong please direct me to the guideline which stipulates that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrangere (talk • contribs)
    - You are apparently somehow involved with the subject, which was stated on ANI when I first found these articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, as listed quite clearly, by you, Et, here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please attempt to read all of the entries you are citing before adding comments relating to the nature of those comments Daedalus969. The entry you are referring to has been explained over and over again. All opinions are valued - just be informed. It's more helpful. Etrangere (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You admit that you are an aquaintance of the subject of these articles. You certainly have a stake in their inclusion on this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. I only see a single album on a marginally notable indie label, the rest of the indies are non-notable. Further, as WP:MUSIC states, significant mention in reliable sources is required. I see none of that here. The NPR piece is a short bio with no named author, and cannot be used to establish notability. Then we have Allmusic and Last.fm. Two companies which simply publish music information. No named author, cannot be used to establish notability. Lastly, we have the Dallas observer. That's a single article. Multiple are required.. what's more, the Observer doesn't even mention this artist's name. It gives a passing mention to a band he was in, The Junky Southern, but that's it. The article is about some other band that the subject of the article wasn't even in. Fails WP:N, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:19, 21 January 2010 (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.

Article should be deleted. Notability not established Em7 (talk)