Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pucci Dellanno

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pucci Dellanno

This BLP has no sources that support the individual's notability. This person does not appear to be the subject of any published secondary source material. Original author and primary editor has COI with the subject. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I represent the artist Bridget Grace from the Polydor (Germany) label. I was asked to create a Wikipedia entry two years ago, since this artist's work is constantly remixed and included in compilations, and there was no entry.

This article is about the person as well as the artist, since it seemed to us inane to create an entry for a non-physical person.

This article is no more nor less relevant than ANY article in Wikipedia about musical artists and their career.

Citations are impossible, numerous references and external reference links are provided and can be checked - therefore I do not see how the individual's notability is in doubt - please enter "Bridget Grace" or "Aurora Dellanno" on google to see a large number of references and hits coming up (if the lady prefers to be called Pucci instead of Aurora outside her professional circle, this is entirely her business, of course we will understand if you wish us to change to entry to Aurora Dellanno, aka Pucci from the current name).

Thanks.

Thomaslear (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Ghits only show online stores, myspace and facebook sites. The only reference to releases on Polydor, Atlantic or Network records is this wikipedia particle. Willing to change me vote if someone can find some thing that would pass any of the 12 criteria. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist. Myspace links are not considered reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these are links to external websites that detail Bridget Grace's releases:

http://www.discogs.com/Bridget-Grace-Take-Me-Away/release/65458
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.kollecta.com/Collector_Item/Vinyl_Record_(music)/Vinyl_Record/Take+Me+Away/757540.htm
http://www.webdjs.ch/sale.htm
http://%3cbr%3ewww.rolldabeats.com/artist/bridget_grace
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Memory-inch-VINYL-Single/dp/B000UD7Q22/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1233150176&sr=1-1
http://www.rave.com.ua/blog/2008/11/28/various-the-ultimate-rave-album/
http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=12;1;306;-1;202&sku=643278
http://top80.pl/disc/artist/Bridget+Grace
http://www.trugroovez.com/forums/clarence-g-hyperspacesound-lab-e-p-da-bay-sale-t4985.html
http://www.djdownload.com/mp3-detail/Haji++Emanuel/Take+Me+Away/Big+Love/88134
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Original-Rave-Anthems-Various-Artists/dp/tracks/B000JJ5G1K/ref=dp_tracks_all_3#disc_3
http://www.biglovemusic.co.uk/

the links above include Amazon, and HMV.

Polydor Music, as you are probably aware, is now part of the Universal Music Group and our websites only have the current roster of artists. We decided that this artist was worth bringing again to the fore because of the recent remix contest on "Take Me Away" (please cfr reference in the wikipedia page - it is not a myspace link), as well as the song being included in the "Original Rave Anthems" CD published by Warner Music (under license from us for our artists), in December 2006.

This all came after DJs Haji & Emmanuel published a series of mixes of the same song in January 2006. Details of the several releases under the Big Love music label are also available from the biglovemusic link.

Saying that an artist is no longer important because they no longer have a record contract would mean taking Radiohead out of Wikipedia, and the same is saying that Amazon and HMV.com are not reliable resellers because they are online - and before you ask, yes many many people all over the world still buy the Take Me Away mixes and dance to the music - and is an encyclopedia's function not that of reference, to find out where things come from?

Thomaslear (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. The issue isn't whether she exists, but whether she is notable. Providing a bunch of sites where you can buy her songs hasn't established that. And your last statement about encyclopaedia's function maybe true for a paper encyclopaedia, but not wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with you, the editor. But then again, going by your talk page, a lot of editors have been trying to help you see this since June 2007, and here we are still going around in circles. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A musician whose work is constantly reviewed by peers, re-licensed and (in this case) remixed is what is normally considered notable. The evidence I can provide is that this is happening (covers, re-issues and compilations) - and that is the point.

As for my talk page, a lot of editors have indeed helped me, when I created the page, since I had never used Wikipedia to insert data before - and I am grateful to them for that. Going by my talk page, the only time the notability of the subject was put into question, was right when I created the page and I was asked to provide cross-references.

92.234.146.102 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As her producer, I can understand you fighting to keep the article, but unfortunately none of your arguments hold up against anything. Four out of the six external links that are currently in the article are MySpace links, which WP doesn't see as being a reliable source - see paragraph number ten in this section for more details. On another point, the article as currently written is so far left of neutral it's not even in the ballpark for fulfilling the NPOV guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (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.