- 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The result was withdrawn, as promised, because the article has seen neutralization and referencing repair. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandre Da Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a concert violinist, whose notability claims per WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. There are some definite conflict of interest issues here, as the article was first created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history concentrated exclusively on Da Costa, one other musician and a music school that they both seem to have some unspecified association with (they all interlink each other as see-alsos, but none of them offer any context at all to explain why), and was also subsequently edited by the subject himself — but the core problem is that while this says a lot of notable-sounding stuff, it doesn't properly support any of it with reliable notability-building sources.
And while one claim here ("Juno Award winner") is both verifiably true and a solid inherent notability claim that clinches his includability in principle, the overall tone of the article is so egregiously advertorialized that it's not enough to just plop down a footnote on the Juno Award statement and walk away.
As always, the notability test isn't in the things the article says, it's in the quality of the referencing that the article is or isn't using to support the things the article says — so obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can write a neutral version that actually supports its content with reliable sourcing, but in this highly advertorialized form it requires the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertorialized content cannot be left advertorialized pending some unspecified future day when somebody eventually deigns to rewrite it for proper NPOV. Obviously I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if it gets comprehensively overhauled into a properly written and properly sourced article before this discussion concludes — but if that doesn't happen, then we have to delete the advertorialized version and restart a new article from scratch, because leaving the advertorialism untouched and unaddressed is absolutely not an option at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank it and tag it as a stub? We can add a few sentences as a base. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I did the rewrite that was called for above by Oaktree b and Bearcat, basically went WP:TNT on it, taking it to zero and adding in only what was verifiable. I found that he's the artistic director of what seems to be a serious orchestra, and is well covered in mainstream media, so he seems clearly notable, even if this article was both WP:PROMO and not cited until now. I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, looks good as a base. The Juno win alone makes him notable. Rest certainly adds to it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, that's more like it. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.