Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. might as well close this before more SPAs flank the discussion, anyways aside from them it's a unanimous consensus for deletion JForget 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zamora (musician)

edit
Zamora (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of already deleted article, discussed some time ago here. I didn't nominate this for speedy delete because I want to reach consensus again. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to hide. My co-workers have tried to create the article in past ocassions in both es.wiki and en.wiki. Katydelmar works in my office and we share the same Internet connection. Furthermore, we don't have any relationship with the subject of the article (no WP:COI). However, who assures us that other people who voted "delete" in this AfD (mostly admins) are not the same people, or there is a close relationship (between themselves, or the Wikipedia CEO, or the Arbitration Commitee per WP:ADM), if they all have admin privileges, and admins can change logs and everything as they want?

To summarize: It does not have sense to ask for the result of a poll, to the manufacturer of the voting machine.

AfD's are not, or at least should not be, a poll. Taemyr (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

An administrator can't do any of those things. Also, the assumption that evil admins are tampering with the AFD to try to get your article deleted is quite ridiculous. --Atlan (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounds like a joke for you, but I am starting to think that. and more to the point if the article gets deleted again- I will take it to another level, because I proved that my article fulfilled WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* *STRONG KEEP Grammy.com no (as previously said, anybody can register for an account), but a search in Grammy365.com [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] corroborates that he is a member of the academy. Its a site for members of the academy only. --Katydelmar (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC) account has been blocked as sockpuppet of Angelamuziotti --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very suspicius that the only couple of editions of Katydelmar have been done in this AFD. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 04:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He may be a member of the academy, but he isn't necessarily a voting member of the academy. Associate and student memberships are also available. More to the point, membership in the Recording Academy is not an indicator of notability; nomination for an award from the academy would be. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede membership but not voting membership. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It does not matter. He is memember of the "National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences anyway. Katydelmar (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC) quoted from Talk:Zamora (musician)[reply]

"...A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:..."
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
https://www.indierec.com/artists-results.php?what=New&lo=150&hi=7
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=zamora+site%3Asky.fm
--Katydelmar (talk)
However, neither of those prove anything, as I've explained at Talk:Zamora (musician). —C.Fred (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Katydelmar … presented two possible sources at the AfD discussion for the notability of the article.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=zamora+site%3Asky.fm was offered as evidence that the song had been put into rotation on Sky. However, all of the results from that search were to forums.sky.fm, and forums and blogs are not reliable sources… —C.Fred (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) quoted from Talk:Zamora (musician)
SKY.fm is a major radio network. It does not matter if it is terrestrial radio or Internet radio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky.fm
Here is the archived play list log of SKY.fm:
http://www.wallpaperweb.org/music/artist/Zamora_22278/
--Katydelmar (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is a single station and not a network. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant.
SKY.fm is a major radio network, and the station belongs to a major radio network (It does not matter if it is terrestrial, satellite or Internet radio). So, per WP:MUSIC, he meets this criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Katydelmar (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SKY.fm is not a major radio network, per this archived discussion about the notability criteria. DI.com, its sister service, is singled out as an example of a a service without sufficient listeners to qualify. Besides, if he'd achieved that level of notability, there would be other independent sources to meet WP:GNG; all he seems to have is an Allmusic profile. —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sample is not valid to establish WP:MUSIC its only a talk page and that discussion corroborates that "It comes down to listeners..."
Again: SKY.fm is a major radio network, and only one criteria is need for WP:MUSIC. 70.000 listeners reported today at 9:00 am (or between 40.000 or 100.000 any day at anytime) is a service without sufficient listeners??? Katydelmar (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. Artist has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Records look to be self-published (Z-records) and manufactured on demand, books look to be self-published (CreateSpace or Z-books). Membership of the Recording Academy: "Our members include: singers, songwriters, engineers, producers, managers [and] a wide range of professionals working in the music industry". I am quite sure they are not all notable. If they are, stand by the lifeboats... Apart from which, I too suspect the sock drawer is stirring again. Peridon (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've reverted a strikethrough on my post and Satori Son's above applied by Katydelmar. I regard this as vandalism, and would advise supporters of the article's retention that tricks like that only help to damage your case. Peridon (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's another one where text went missing... The strikethrough was here Peridon (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both votes does not have any value because the debate had finished when Katydelmar proved that his songs had been played in a major radio network according to WP:MUSIC Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither voter has agreed to change his vote, so the debate will run the full seven days. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC was fulfilled. It does not have sense to wait seven full days according to WP:KEEP Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is not clearly fulfilled. However, I think the article should stay around seven days before being deleted, if that's what final consensus is judged to be. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC is very clear:

"...A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:..."

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, there is no evidence that Clear Channel, BBC Radio 1, Virgin Radio, or the like have put him into rotation. That leaves a definitional issue of whether a SKY.fm stream is sufficient for notability, and several editors (including myself) feel that streaming service does not meet the definition. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that sky.fm is not enough to have the necessary notability. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Katydelmar have previously explained, it does not matter if it is terrestrial, satellite or Internet radio, because when a law is not specific (i.e. 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network WP:MUSIC) it is open to new technologies. More to the point that this law have not changed in a very long time, knowing that there are new technologies. [[4]]. Radio reaches digital age- quoted from SFgate.com / San Francisco Chronicle newspaper 01-27-2003
Furthermore, DI.FM and his sister network SKY.FM is one of the largest radio networks on the Internet. [[5]]

Angelamuziotti (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliotecario (biblio) = sysop in spanish wikipedia. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did it? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the exact moment that WP:MUSIC was fullfiled. Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary / Off topic - I have explained each edit. Mostly grammar checks.

Issue Solved. References [[6]]

Angelamuziotti (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was very clear, and everything was well explained. There is nothing more to argue, and there are zero remaining arguments for deletion of this article.

Angelamuziotti (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am copying & pasting the same note:

When SNOW is around, some people use SALT for protection... Peridon (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I am a fan of Zamora, and I have joined only to emit my short and humble opinion here.

First of all: I can't believe it.

A musician,

1. Member of the Recording Academy, the organization that awards the GRAMMYs.

2. With his own store in Amazon.com.

3. Author of several albums, listed in Allmusic.com.

4. Author of several books, listed in isbnDB.com.

5. And music air played in Sky.fm, one of the largest radio networks on the Internet.

Is Irrelevant? No notable?

That is incredible...

Sorry, but nobody in this world is going to take seriously all your comments.

p.s,

If the article is deleted, it only will confirm once again, the bad and doubtful reputation of Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Dr.luigibenedetti (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Dr.luigibenedetti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Quack quack! --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

post-archival for the record (checkuser) (apologies since this is already archived but these sockpuppets are going at this since 2007 and we shouldn't lose trail). This article was deleted on 2009 on eswiki and several zamora sockpuppets were knocked. This seems a recreation with the same tactics. Should it be needed in the future, eswiki checkuser can provide more data. -- m:drini 05:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

[7] (article was later recreated with an homonym)
[8]
[9]
[10]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zamora_(musician)&oldid=1140753196"