Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JustCarmen

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. Wizardman 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JustCarmen

JustCarmen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable singer who fails WP:MUSIC. The only reason anyone has ever heard of her is because of her producer. If anything this should be redirected, there is no assertion of individual notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge see below but with what? The perfect article would be Seriously Single but that article doesn't exist yet. By the way, that album is notable for the very reasons stated in JustCarmen. You could potentially merge this into a section about the album in Giovanni di Stefano but that could get awkward. I'm okay with Delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per davidwr. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as we need better coverage of Italian related subjects, NPOV demands we cover Italy as well as we cover America or Britain and this is going in the wrong direction for that. Plus we have reliable verifiable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Changing vote from merge to NEED MORE INFORMATION We should look at how other one-hit wonders are treated: Do albums get an article, does the band or singer get an article, or both? I'm going with precedent on this, whatever that turns out to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on investigating this, I am certainly worried about inconsistency in deleting this when we keep similar stuff from the US and UK, including many articles about singles. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually SqueakBox all you need to do is explain the nature of the coverage you cite. At least provide the names of the articles in question. She utterly fails every criteria in WP:MUSIC which makes her subject to the same requirements as any other biographies. You've been here longer than me, you know this stuff already ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, you can easily argue that she meets the following criteria for entertainers: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Well, one unique contribution. What she may or may not have done is have her achievement noted in independent, secondary sources. It's hard to tell since neither reference is really independent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC covers both one-hit wonders and those who had more than one hit recording. I see no such compliance with this notability guideline. Did her record chart on the Italian record charts? No such evidence is apparent... Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• The contribution in question was innovative because of the purposeful mix of established people and an unknown. This innovation was noted by sources. This makes it covered by WP:MUSIC even if it didn't hit the charts. The question we have to answer is just how innovative does it have to be to WP:MUSIC-innovative, and is it really notable or is it just a curiosity that happened to make the newspapers? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's more than a decade and a half since Unforgettable and King of Hearts and a quarter century since "There's a Tear in My Beer". All three of these are electronically generated duets between a live artist and a deceased one. I have seen no such evidence of "innovation" stated in the article. Where are the citations documenting the innovation, and how do these electronic "innovations" on a recording that apparently had no charting success augment her notability? B.Wind (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• From the article: It was Stefano's idea to put a relatively unknown singer into the studio with recordings of big stars from the past. The claimed innovation was putting a relatively unknown singer up with big stars from the past. It's hard to check with paper-based references but presumably this statement came from information in the references in the footnotes. Again, as AfD reviewers it's our job to determine if that meets the notability criteria when WP:N is in doubt. I think you can make a case for it, although if the article for the album existed, I would recommend redirecting to the album. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to closing admin this is very thin and needs more comments before there is a consensus one way or the other. I recommend "no consensus" and revisit the issue in a few months and/or after someone writes Seriously Single. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this article is merged into a Seriously Single without opposition. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with a redirect or merge but until notability is properly asserted it fails notability guidelines. I've explained above what the easiest way for the creator to assert notability would be. Are we talking about non-trivial coverage or 3 lines on the bottom of the page? Relisting is prefferable to no consensus as the creator has still not responded and may have been too busy to do so with such short notice. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename as Seriously Single, all it takes is to switch the initial sentences. Person is notable (if it is...) only for that one event - Nabla (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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.