Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffaella (musician)

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. Aoidh (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaella (musician)

[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)

Not meeting notability criteria for musicians; sources used in the article are promotional or streaming sites. I can't find mentions of this person in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have a staff written AllMusic bio here and coverage in The Current and Consequence of Sound referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources in the article are promotional or interviews, and the Allmusic bio also sounds promotional. WP:RSP also states about Allmusic that "Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available.". JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most music editors consider AllMusic a reliable source and the bio does not seem promotional to me Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are promo and mentions, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promo, database style listings, nothing with SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:04, 19 May 2023 (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.