Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberto Ctllo

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Alberto Ctllo

Alberto Ctllo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician. No indication of passing WP:GNG either, as all search results seem to be social media or commercial sites affiliated with him. All of the links and references in the article are to sites affiliated with him or social media. GAB^gab 01:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I suspect looking at the article creator's name that this is WP:PROMO and self-publicity. Richard3120 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with what Richard3120 saidSassmouth (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The suspect does not give them the right to remove, user "SassMouth" can not support anything in absolute proof. I'm a musician and I'm on the right to publish a note here on Wikipedia and must be reviewed by an expert but not for experienced users. OscarC12 (Talk) 10:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no "right" to be on Wikipedia, and we don't work on the principle of expertise. GAB^gab 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • GAB^gab, But neither you have the right to delete only for "Suspicion" and I am Mexican nationality do not understand why add a list of Mexico-related deletion discussions would add new references but does not allow me page for an alleged blockade that seems not quiren that belongs to Wikipedia, 08:30 a.m., 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I nominated this for deletion because it fails two policies (cited above), not because of any "suspicion." The "deletion discussions" link is only used to organize AFDs, not for anything in the article. Besides that, I really don't understand what you're saying, I'm sorry. GAB^gab 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• No Delete:GAB In response to WP:GNG and Non-notable musician He was nominated in the category: Best Mexican artist Premios MIN (Spain award)He appeared in a newspaper article as a musician selection http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/06/03/opinion/a10o1esp (Spanish),he is a member SoundExchange, I meet more than one of the important points mentioned. WP: PROMO I do not seek promotion, I want their fans and the general public more aware of that musical artist, ONErpm is responsible for promoting the artist mentioned in this article and is part of the artists of VEVO, this article is not intended to be promotion. which is the real reason that you want to delete?. Where is a difference between delete and make an announcement "We need more references, it helps contribute", 09:26a.m., 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)
• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Note to closing admin: OscarC12 is casting multiple votes. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 01:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin, I read that the votes are not for a count but rather to create a final decision, but the evaluation of previous users important points to make an argument, I explained in detail why this article artist began, but I read that people mentioned failures and do not write a valid argument. 06:30p.m., 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)
  • I think they should have more attention on users with Antiquity Arun Kumar SINGH, because they handle ambiguous approach, citing links arrive leave the conversation without taking a view on what is the problem? but without specifying the point of the article and alleged "failed". 06:45p.m., 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarC12 (talk • contribs)

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.