Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giulia Anghelescu


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Giulia Anghelescu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We need some sort of references establishing this individual's notability, as defined by WP:NMUSIC, and no, an article announcing that she's delivered a baby girl doesn't help in that regard. - Biruitorul Talk 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  16:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Mister Biruitorul, can you read English? Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles and read carefully! This singer passes at least 4 of these criteria. Your userpage tells that you're native speaker of Romanian. I doubt. Because in this case you could read just some pages of those 125.000 web pages available on internet in which Giulia is mentioned to find her notability. I noticed you are obsessed with deletion of Romania-related articles. Better propose right now deletion of articles Bucharest and Romania and don't play with small preys. I suggest you to check New Pages Feed where you can see hundreds and thousands of stuby articles abouts non-notable musical albums, some 'anonymous' artists, unknown authors, various non-notable sport clubs and teams. This article, is not a real candidate for deletion, it's candidate for improvement. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of any biography has to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Verbiage aside, please adduce some specific examples of significant coverage if you want the article kept. - Biruitorul Talk 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unless this article is a hoax, there is no way this person is not well-known in Romania, with language barriers (and potential mispellings) presenting the primary sourcing difficulty. Pax 06:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so she's notable because a Wikipedia editor who has no idea about WP:CS, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and so forth made unverifiable claims about her. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, and I suggest you review the relevant policies more clearly before casting such irresponsible votes. We need sources backing up assertions of notability, and we currently have none. If sources attesting notability emerge, great. If not, we are under no obligation to lend credence to the article text. (WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.".) In fact, per WP:BLP, we should be especially wary of doing so. - Biruitorul Talk 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: failed WP:BEFORE, clearly a celebrity, she regularly receives tons of coverage in Romanian newspapers, magazines and other news sources: eg,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , there are dozens of pages about her on Google News. And I just checked for "Giulia Anghelescu", not for "Giulia" which is her stage name. She appears to be some sort of local Rihanna and she apparently receives news coverage on daily basis, I can't see how a Romanian-born editor could fail to see that in their WP:BEFORE. Article is in bad shape, but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 07:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's take a closer look at these sources you've brought in.
 * This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this is blatant tabloid trash. We're an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag, and as a matter of course, we simply don't cite publications of that sort. Besides, the content of the linked articles is largely (if not entirely) trivial and unquotable.
 * As for the rest, it ranges from barely acceptable to respectable newspapers, but let's see what they say; let's look at the headlines.
 * Breaking news! Giulia Anghelescu is pregnant!
 * You weren't expecting this! The real reason why Giulia Anghelescu is NOT divorcing Vlad Huidu!
 * Giulia loses 18 kg by eating cherry stems
 * How Giulia Anghelescu lost 18 kg after giving birth without dieting
 * Giulia, adored by Romania's gay community
 * Terrible news for Giulia. Almost 8 months pregnant, the singer finds out she has complications
 * Giulia, on the Candy period, DJ Project, her showbiz friends and her secret dream
 * Giulia Anghelescu visits 'Splash! Stars in the water', at the request of her husband, Vlad Huidu
 * Giulia, pregnant for the second time! See what she looks like
 * Giulia gives birth. 'I'm the happiest mommy'
 * Must I say more? All this, too, is trivia, all of it tabloid junk that made its way into relatively decent papers, none of it actually evidence of any sort of encyclopedic notability, none of it in the least quotable. If you have some kind of usable sources, do let us know. If you have some sourced evidence the subject might meet not just WP:MUSICBIO point 1, but any of points 2 through 12, again, let us know. Until then, however, not a shred of real evidence exists as to the subject's notability, as defined by the relevant policies; consequently, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for traslating titles, yet I have to disagree with your analysis: she's an entertainer, I don't expect to see her as the subject of economics or political articles. As pointed above, I just randomly choose a few of the hundreds of articles available on her, and still most of them are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the fact that reputable (or decent, as you prefer) newspapers and media sources regularly inform their readers about the subject's pregnancies, marriages, television appearences and similar stuff is evidence that an entertainer's career is notable. About MUSICBIO, she maybe meets it, probably fails it, I have not analyzed it but GNG generally trumps SNGs, so my vote remains. Cavarrone  19:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, she wouldn't appear in the business or politics sections, but there should be some kind of significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The way I understand that, because this is how biographies work in practice, is some kind of basic overview of her life/career. Not just trivial mentions about her pregnancy issues, in other words, but some sort of framework source telling us why she's famous.
 * (For instance, in the case of another Romanian singer, Alexandra Stan, we have several of those:, , , , plus major award confirmation. That simply doesn't exist, as far as I can see, for Anghelescu.)
 * So, to reiterate, I would be interested in seeing significant coverage of the individual, as opposed to her trivial actions, and that remains to be seen, although we will probably have to agree to disagree. - Biruitorul Talk 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, significant coverage is not necessarely supposed to be an overview of the career of a subject (while I LOVE when I find such kind of sources), and our guidelines currently do not support such interpretation. I fail to see how articles entitled to the subject, and which enterely focus on the subject are not significant coverage, or do not address the topic directly. About the examples, the Alexandra Stan sources (which except one did not really impressed me) are not so different from articles such as , , , or . Note, I am not claiming Anghelescu's notability is well-deserved, it is not my duty to judge, I am just observing she is certainly considered a major celebrity by the press in terms of attention and coverage. Whether she is a new Madonna or just some local Kim Kardashian (someone famous for being famous), that's ultimately a secondary issue. And about "trivial actions", when the press uses to record every minimal action of a subject, it happens because they consider that subject very notable (that's a side effect of notability, particularly in the entertainment field). Cavarrone  23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mister Biruitorul, I think you just don't want to accept any argument attempting to gain deletion of this article to satisfy your craving. Between 2009-2011 Giulia was member of project "DJ Project". In 2010 along the rest of group she won Romanian Music Awards for BEST GROUP . She has a lot of songs in top of Romanian Charts (for several weeks/months consecutively). If you can't check this, ask someone to help you. Also, this singer has been in rotation nationally on radio channels of Romania. You don't like some tabloids, but they just confirms its notability. As soon as Giulia became pregnant, mass-media of Romania wrote on her (on fact of her pregnancy). As soon she give birth to child, immediately she received a lot of coverage in media. Besides of this, you can find published materials about Giulia on all major Romanian media resources. You must understand that you have no chance to contest notability of this person. More than this, not only Giulia is notable, but also she has ~5 notable albums and singles. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you're generating Kim Kardashian levels of trashy headlines, you're notable. At some massive amount, quantity does matter as much as quality. Pax 23:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: She has released several albums throughout her career. Some of them are with ro:Cat Music, a record label that's been around since 1997 (that is, more than half of the post-communist time of her country, the only time when the market was not under the monopoly of the state-owned Electrecord), which means it might be qualified as a "(an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)", as per criterion 5 from WP:BAND. The other one, Hahaha Production, is relatively new, and possibly could not be considered as such, but I think the tabloid noise about her comes from a real notability whose evidence are her albums released with Cat Music. That is what the article should focus on.- Andrei (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2015 (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.