Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Sanicola


 * 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   no consensus. Although the delete arguments are strong, significant work has been done - I'm considering this as "no consensus to delete" at this time (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Eric Sanicola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Less than notable music producer and songwriter article that reads more like a billboard advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Technical 13 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability; none of the sources cited are significant coverage in the context of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Full disclosure, as you'll see from my contribs, I'm not exactly uninterested here. In my view this article was clearly approved in error - the reviewing instructions are quite clear that an AFC with these scanty references should be rejected - and in an ideal world would be punted back to AFC. Since that isn't an option, my main contention here is that the article demonstrates little or no notability and I see little reason to suppose the subject is notable; notability is not infectious, and the essential claim here is of having worked with notable people. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

greatly appreciated..
 * Weak delete. He has substantial credits and gets mentioned here and there in the press (HighBeam has a 2005 Manila Bulletin article with a reference to him as an "18 year-old music genius") but I can't find any substantial coverage of the sort usually required to support an article like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Full disclosure here as well, I wrote the article, and never thought I'd have to defend it so much. If the article reads like a billboard, or advertisement, please tell me what lines I can change to fix that. Sources are cited mostly to prove the credits in this short, to the point article. Its hard to defend myself in the "articles for deletion" section, but I do invite anyone with an open mind to consider the article MIGHT be notable to those who are interested in the field of pop music. A screenwriter thats written episodes of various popular TV series over the last ten years would be considered notable enough to me personally, but maybe not to someone else. Pinkbeast has been hounding me SINCE THE CHAT ROOM where I was advised by Coolboygcp that "you seem notable"  who then approved me. Writing for Cher Lloyd, One Direction, Big Time Rush, Yanni, Michael Bolton, Paulina Rubio is not notable enough for a short article? NOT getting them coffee.. WRITING the SONGS THEY SING. PLEASE advise what I can do to make the article as unbiased and fair as possible. I'm open to the fact it might seem biased (although I cant zero in on exactly WHERE it comes across that way), and I hope you can perhaps be open to the fact that to some degree, however minimal, it might be notable enough to remain on the site in peace..
 * First thing, please always remember to sign your posts on talk pages and procedural discussions with ~.
 * Second thing. Notability on Wikipedia doesn't mean what it means in the "real world" and a suggestion is to read up on WP:NOTABILITY and in your case, since you are claiming notability in the music world, WP:MUSIC → WP:COMPOSER may apply. The discussion titled WT:AFC about  has led to a consensus request on him having a WP:TOPICBAN because the user was wrong to accept this article from WP:AfC, as well as some others. Technical 13 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider Thank you for pointing me to the article on Coolboygpc. It was started by... you guessed it ....Pinkbeast.. This user, as Ive said seems to clearly be projecting his own issues concerning 'notability' into a crusade that seems mainly targeted on me at the moment. He's looking for validation (self admittedly) concerning his attitude from the very start, (probably before he even read my article). He saw someone in the chat room discussing the question of notability and chimed in, uninvited, with "Everyone thinks their notable."  Since then he's been ALL OVER me, and now coolboygpc. How about this.. If Pinkbeast will lay off coolboygpc, who was so wrong for thinking a guy who's been writing songs for some of the worlds biggest artists is notable, you can delete my article.  I cant believe the ferocity over this. This started off as something I was very proud and happy about. I'll send Pinkbeast periodic updates of my discography until he deems me "notable" enough for him.  173.52.117.156 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition Reading Pinkbeasts complaint of coolboygcp further, he says things like " the article which proved not surprisingly to be written by the subject..." I was upfront from square ONE about who I was. I never tried to hide it.. He's trying to turn this article into the "cliche" scenario which Im sure he deals with everyday, without considering that MAYBE this isn't exactly that.173.52.117.156 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with Pinkbeast's behavior, you can always file a request for an investigation at the WP:RFC/U. However, this AfD for your article is not the place to discus it.  If you want to talk about it more with me, you may start a new subsection on my user talk page and I would be happy to offer you what resources I can find that may be of use.  The hard part about the AfD for me is that your article should have never left AfC.  I'm also an AfC reviewer, and I know that "most" of the other reviewers wouldn't have accepted it.  It is fairly difficult to push it back to AfC, however, I wouldn't be opposed to that happening in this case if an administrator was willing to take the time to do it.  Your other option, would be to request it to be WP:USERFIED as a Userspace draft as it appears there will be a consensus and it will likely get deleted otherwise.  I would be happy to work with you as a reviewer to let you know when it would be reasonable to expect it to not be deleted from the article mainspace and at that point, you could {{subst:Submit}} it for review by another AfC reviewer and it would be fairly reasonable to expect it to not get deleted. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith about the motives and actions of others editors. As far as I can see, Pinkbeast's concerns and comments expressed here have been consistent with Wikipedia policies.  And Technical 13 is absolutely right to point you to WP:NOTABILITY; you should also have a look at WP:Identifying reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies Im sorry to have that conversation here. I honestly just wanted to point out the history of events so maybe others could consider their own opinion before considering that users comments as someone viewing the article from a fresh perspective. I would LOVE for you to please advise me on what I can do! There are some news articles that I left out, as was pointed in this discussion earlier, but when I wrote the article, my aim was to just fill the requirements, and when I wasnt getting rejected based on ref sources, I figured I was good in that area. Also, many of those songs in the articles have charted on billboard and itunes, so would notating that help or just make it seem more of an advertisement? (I DID do that at one point but was then deleted by Strike Eagle for some reason.)   ANY constructive advice would be appreciated. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an alternative to deletion, return this to AFC and salt the main-article page for a period of 1 year (or less, I'm not picky). This will require an administrator to move the page out of AFC after there is a good article that meets WP:Notability approved by at least one AFC reviewer and counter-approved by the "moving" administrator.  If this is not possible or desirable, then softdelete.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I think we can settle the notability issue within a few days, no need to buy additional time by going back to WP:AFC.  Deferring "keep" or "delete" until notability issue resolved. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Return this to AFC would be ideal; I just didn't know that could be done. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've ignored all rules and moved several newly-created mainspace articles to AFC this year alone. However, none of them were at AFD.  I moved most because they were brand-new and they were created with AFC submission AND were clearly not ready for prime time, so it was likely that the article was simply created in the wrong place to begin with.  I think I moved one for some other reason to save it from a worse fate.  I only remember getting "push back" once.  "Playing cowboy" and ignoring all rules is risky, but in each case I carefully considered the options and I believe I did the right thing.  If we, those discussing this article, come to a consensus to move the article to AFC and the closing administrator ratifies that decision, we will have created precedent for future AFDs.  Having said this, I must now state that I have a WP:Conflict of interest in that I have opened this discussion to formalize my previous actions and, should this AFD be closed with "move to AFC", the actions of this discussion.  As a proponent of the proposal I just linked to, I have a clear conflict of interest in recommending that this discussion close with "move to AFC". davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As nominator I have no objection to that. Technical 13 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * David Respectfully, as I am getting a rather brutal crash course on Wiki, your suggestion seems like an alternative to actually FIXING the article. The Wiki equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Just get it out of here!" The WHOLE POINT (as it seems to me) of it ending up here is that SOMEONE thought it was worthy enough to exist. Once speedy deletion is denied, and an administrator has agreed it should exist, the intention is to IMPROVE IT (exact word of administrator who suggested it end up here)! While it sits in AFD, it can be CONSTRUCTIVELY improved, but once again, in this case there is no real specifics being pointed to. Just some links that SUGGEST notability should be considered, which it was, and found affirmative twice so far... So once I again I implore you to point to what I can do to improve. The whole article minus the discog is four sentences.. I have six references, one of which being one of NY's biggest newspapers, acknowledging my notoriety and credits, another from Asia calling me an "18 year old music genious." Allmusic.com which Wiki SPECIFICALLY suggests I use. Discog.com? I'm at your service! I'll cite every record in the discography if I have to! Please reconsider:(173.52.117.156 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)173.52.117.156 (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 'View History This article has already been "notable approved" by at least one AFC reviewer, and if you'll look at the history, an administrator has already DENIED deletion on the grounds that notability has been established but suggested it be 'improved.' I'm here, asking how to improve it, (Ive already added ANOTHER reliable news source since this discussion) and the answers Im getting are--"delete it" "send it back to AfC" and "Make it a user page."  I was expecting people to HELP me improve the page, but it seems like nothing short of removing it will do. I've been noted for possible conflict of interest, but Im asking what I can do to make the article as unbiased and factual as possible. Hopefully someone can help without an immediate agenda for removal/deletion.  173.52.117.156 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the history, the only thing I found was a WP:CSD was declined because there was a credible assertion of notability within the article. This is not the same as meeting WP:Notability.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, never stated that they agreed the article should exist. Their edit summary was (with some added formating to emphasize stuffs): "CSD Declined - notability has been asserted, but better references needed . Not overly promotional. Suggest AFD/Improve " I think if you follow the links and pay attention to the underlined/bold stuff, you'll see he didn't disagree that it needs to be fixed/deleted and simply stated it doesn't meet the extremely strict qualifications for speedy deletion. I've left a talkback on their talk page requesting they clarify for you what their edit summary means. Technical 13 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess when I read it, I obviously was imagining phrases like "CSD denied" "notability asserted" and "improve" as underlined and in bold. I was NOT trying to imply the admin approved the article, or boast that he disagreed with you. My ONLY point, was can we stop ONLY talking about deletion and shift to how to IMPROVE. I didnt realize the extent to which it needed to be referenced, and no one was pointing to specific things in the article they wanted confirmed or cited. Finally David started, and I've been vigorously improving and filling in the article with him help, and whoever else will help. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have started reviewing this in depth in a way that SHOULD have happened at AFC. Based on other Wikipedia articles and his work history at the ASCAP web site, it's pretty clear his works DO appear on multiple Platinum-certified albums which charted highly in multiple countries. Once I find non-Wiki reliable sources to back this up I will add citations.  I encourage other editors to "beat me to the punch" in improving this article's references. What is NOT clear yet but which needs to become clear is whether any of the actual songs he worked on charted, went gold as singles, or otherwise became notable, or if he otherwise meets the criteria in WP:COMPOSER or another applicable WP:Notability category.  I am very hopeful that this person has written or co-written one or preferably more than one notable song so we can close this as "keep". davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU DAVID! Ive just added three more third party references to three singles that have charted in Billboard. Will that do!?173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the admin who declined the speedy deletion of the article; I also tagged for COI. The reasoning, as suggested above by Technical 13 was pretty spot on: CSD is explicit as what does or doesn't qualify as a candidate.  Here there is a credible assertion of notability (albeit not particularly great at the time of assessment), which exempts it from speedy deletion under A7.  There is now time for the editor(s) to prove notability by adding better sources.  Incidentally, when faced with an article that is borderline for speedy deletion, the approach I adopt is let it stand and face peer review at an XFD.


 * Whenever I decline speedy deletion, I always add 2 or 3 suggested courses of actions for people to follow, be it the nominator or the editors: PROD and/or AFD as two routes for deleting the article, plus Improve, as a reminder that Wikipedia isn't all about deleting articles. Hope that clarifies my decision. Stephen! Coming... 12:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the Billboard links that were added, but, as I have been recently reminded at Wikipedia talk:Notability, this shows popularity, not notability. Notability in Wikipedia means that authors and journalists have been writing specifically about the subject.  I was advocating for a page about a video reviewer with over a million subscribers, but apparently if none of them were journalists or authors and wrote an article about it, it didn't count toward passing the notability test. So instead of direct chart results, an article discussing the subject and telling about the chart results would be ideal. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Stephen, absolutely understood.. I understand there is a sense of community and good will here. I wasnt trying to pitt anyone against each other, I was simply hoping to focus the conversation away from the incessant demands for removal to what can specifically be done to improve it. Finally, thank God, the conversation seems to be shifting there.  I've been working VERY hard to improve, added much more info, and hopefully at the end of the day this will all be okay.
 * Anne, please note the Billboard reference was specifically to address David's requests for evidence of charting singles. There are also numerous references that address me directly, which should qualify the requirements for WP:COMPOSER . The statements in the articles address me directly and are not me talking about myself or an advertisement.. 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you've been hit hard with advertisement concerns warnings before... Here is some material to read that may help you determine what Wikipedia considers (in)appropriate in those regards: WP:FANSITE, WP:ADV, WP:ELBLP, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:WEASEL. I'm sure there may be more, but I think that having read those you will have a fairly good grasp on what be considered "advertising" and if someone alleges that something you added is advertising, you will know where to point them that says otherwise. I hope you find this useful. Technical 13 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Now Im really confused...Why are you saying 'it seems ive been hit hard with advertising concerns before?' What is the problem now? Is there a specific line or section that seems like advertising here? Its four objective sentences, cited and sourced, and a discog.. help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of your comments such as "I have six references, one of which being one of NY's biggest newspapers, acknowledging my notoriety and credits, another from Asia calling me an "18 year old music genious."" to mean that someone has given you a hard time saying that you can't have certain things that look advertisemental in your article. Heck, even my original CSD request says that it looks like an advertisement or fansite, and the reason I added that in the request is because the article only had a few sentences "about you" and then a long laundry list of achievements, which read like a billboard advertisement to me.  What I am looking for on the aspect is more in the "about you" section that can be referenced to other sources. The list of policies above, was to let you know it is okay for your article to say you are "an 18 year old music genious" if you are quoting a reliable source.  Make sure that you don't "only" include the good things that have been said in reviews or stories, but if a critic says something neutral or negative, you also note that "some" people don't agree and cite that.  As a general rule, more relevant reliably sourced material equals better article and less question of notability. Read the pages I linked and it might make more sense. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You just cited yourself as evidence of your point. Not allowed here on Wiki;) hehe .. sorry couldn't resist. Id rather not include ANY opinions, news or otherwise. My intention was ALWAYS to just be cited for being a notable composer with a list of credits. Simple, short, to the point. No articles have ever written about me negatively, but still.... I feel no need to include the stuff about 'genius.'173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There you might be in for some disappointment, I'm afraid (I hope not, though). Remember, and article about you is NOT owned by you, and anything that is published about you from a reliable source can be used in the article (provided references are given).  WP:PROUD is a good essay to read covering the downside to having an article about you. In short - keep your nose clean, and the article (provided it survives AFD) will probably record only the good things.  Do anything wrong that is reported in the media, or get fired in a high-profile manner, and this article will be edited to reflect it. Stephen! Coming... 11:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I should mention this since no-one else has and I hadn't even thought of it until I just read Stephen's post. You should keep in mind that although this article is about you and even though you have written the article, you have no claim to ownership of the article.  Anyone that finds something about you the is notable/cite-able has the ability and the encouragement to add it to the article. I wasn't sure if it was clear that there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia and wanted to make sure it became so if not. Technical 13 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Guys.. I've recently added content sourced from an entire article written about the subject sourced from LI Herald in 2009. I BEG you to consider that this, along with the other references are enough to give this article a keep status.173.52.117.156 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've done a little copy edit to the Discography section, and would like to see some more references there. I want to say that I'm impressed and the article is "starting" to look like an article.  Keep working on it, you are getting closer. Technical 13 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I really appreciate the edits and I really appreciate the article is on its way. I am glad to source more in the discog, but please note that between the ASCAP link at the bottom (specifically recommended by Wiki) and the specific citations that HAVE been noted in the discog, every song mentioned is clearly verifiable at a reliable source. I can copy the link from Allmusic.com (again specifically recommended by Wiki) over and over again to every individual song, but its just gonna be the same Wiki recommended source verifying the info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you have completed that; I'll take another look over it, confirm the sources, and if it looks good I'll simply withdraw my request for deletion on the basis that the article has improved to meet reasonable standards. When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider creating an account for yourself. (This also applies to Wikipedia project/maintenance pages like this AfC as well.) Technical 13 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Used discog.com and all music and ascap to cite almost all the songs.. I have to leave so couldnt get to every single one, but it would be really helpful if you could point out specific things that are still not satisfying you (and maybe take it upon yourself to fix them if you like!). If what I've done is satisfactory, it would be amazing to come home and see the page approved and nice and clean, with no issues. (COI doesnt seem to be a problem, but I welcome instruction on what needs to be adjusted to get rid of that note too. )173.52.117.156 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't quite what I was looking for... You are using the same source over and over on each line which isn't really an improvement. Also, I note that there are still a number of "Clarifications needed" on the page... Work with the others and see if you can get those clarified... I'd like to see this article in good condition before I would feel comfortable withdrawing my request. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I dont understand exactly what needs clarification on the things you marked "clarification needed." What is unclear there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Additional citations have been added so discog has many variable sources. The only issue is Im not sure what clarification I need to do. Those lines say that I wrote those songs, and cites it as well, so not sure what needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.117.156 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, those are tags that either David or Anne seem to have put there so I can not answer what clarification is needed. As to your questions that you deleted, no, I'm not trying to bait you or be a thorn in your side or whatnot.  I'm know it is difficult, and all of my reasons for the things I'm asking for are intended as a good faith attempt to see your article improved so that you won't have to worry about someone else tagging it for deletion in a short amount of time.  I'll take another look at it this evening and hopefully David/Anne can add some details about what clarification they needed.  Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I plan on spending a few hours on this sometime this weekend. I'll do most of my work "offline" but I may put up an "inuse" flag from time to time.  If it's up and I'm the one that put it there, please post a note on user talk:davidwr and I'll stop editing to avoid edit conflicts.  If I don't take it down within 10 minutes, edit away - if I get an edit conflict and am not checking my talk page that's my own fault. :) davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment thanks for all the help. I don't know how to get the picture up, if someone could help with that it would be awesome. Also, still not sure what the clarification needed tags are referring to, but I'd be glad to help with that if someone could tell me what to do.173.52.117.156 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: The original author of the page has made significant improvements to the article and I'm "almost" convinced to withdraw the nomination. I feel that given a few more days, and a little more guidance, Eric can finish cleaning up this article enough for that.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Technical 13 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment I'm gonna try to figure out the picture uploader thing. As for the "clarification needed" comments, unless someone steps forward and talks about what they need clarified, I'm going to delete them. Its a discog, and the songs are cited and sourced. Technical, I DO appreciate the help but PLEASE if you could be more specific. I've added all  available info, and besides uploading a picture, I don't know what else to do.Filterayok (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (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.