Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giacomo Aragall


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Giacomo Aragall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not NPOV. Entire article reads like a fan wrote it. No sources. Sanctaria (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sanctaria. This is very much like a fancruft. But is this person notable? If so, adding in sources would solve the problem. EROS message 10:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Rule one of AfD is "ignore the present state of the article and check the sources." In this case there are plenty per AP:ARTIST.  For instance, see Rough Guide to Opera, which cites a number of reviews of Aragall's work.  See Aragall's entry in Divo, another review of the guy's work from Stereo Review (this one looks like a bare listing from the snippet, but it's not.  The review discusses Aragall's role in some detail :"Of the three principal artists, Giacomo Aragall seems most involved with the dramatic goings-on. His durable voice is equal to Cavaradossi's rhetorical outbursts and capable of the lyricism required in his arias. If Aragall does not have the most beautiful tenor imaginable, he is convincing in this part, to which he brings a feeling of urgency.")  And so on.  Clear keep, as I said. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ignore present state of the article and check the sources. But there are no sources listed on the article that an editor can check. What you've mentioned here seems to be sources you went and found yourself - which is great, don't get me wrong - but they aren't sources/references that are listed on the article at all. Sanctaria (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point? First of all, article content does not determine notability and secondly, nominators are expected to check for sources before nominating.  This guy is notable, a cursory check with GBooks showed that he was notable,  you evidently failed to complete this cursory but required check.  This is a bad nomination per well-established WP policy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Your tone seems to be quite pointed, though. I'm not sure it's called for especially when all I'm trying to do is help. Sanctaria (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your intentions are good, which provide paving stones for a famous road. The effect is to create even more work for others.  Please read the relevant policies before making more nominations. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - 192.160.216.52 is correct and Sanctaria should have done some work beyond just looking at the article. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "Wrap it up"? In response to 192.160.216.52's points, I did say "that's fair enough". I now agree with keeping the article because of what he pointed out. I was just saying his tone was a bit pointed - even WP:DNB suggests to avoid using intensifiers. I feel like I'm getting piled on at this point, just for making a suggestion. Sanctaria (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the first version of my comment said "wrap it up" and then I removed that phrase in the interests of not being combative, but you saw it first. You are correct about not biting newcomers, but you now have the opportunity to learn about some important Wikipedia policies. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The gentleman has a robust entry at AllMusic and sufficient coverage in the European opera/classical community (not all in English). Here are some examples:, , , and there has been an entire book on him: . Article needs expansion and cleanup, not deletion. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep please - Aragall clearly meets the notability guidelines for music at WP:MUSIC. Not only he has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as mentioned above, he also has multiple recordings on Decca, a major record label. Zingarese (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (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.