Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Claro


 * 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. The only people arguing to keep (and there are plenty of those) are the article's creator, a bunch of WP:SPAs, and somebody with obvious COI (who, at least deserves credit for disclosing this). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Natalie Claro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still nothing actually convincing as not all of these sources are actually acceptable, I still my PROD. SwisterTwister  talk  19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: fairly blatant COI promo. Quis separabit?  20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Aust331 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep appears it may have significant coverage in reliable sources Metaphorical analysis (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw Quis separabit? and I do not personally know subject. I am a music enthusiast and not so much a writer. This is my first attempt at contributing. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, in the interest of full disclosure I was hired to help someone with an interest in this article to navigate through this AFD, I am not voting one way or the other since that would be a Conflict of Interest. Instead I want to point out a few things below.  MPJ  -DK 13:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to call everyone's attention to the "Tampa Bay Times" article that's one of the sources listed. This article alone constitutes "Significant Coverage" as the article is exclusively about her. It is a newspaper with an editorial process in place and as far as I know Natalie Claro is in no way associated with the Tampa Bay Times. Why is this important? because this source alone qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - And that last bit is a direct quote from The General Notabiliy Guideline. Which is the general guideline, even if individual projects impose other guidelines the GNG is the primary guideline.
 * The "Jamsphere" article - Published by a Music Magazine (independent, reliable source) and it is focused on her, not just an aside mention, but an article all about her.


 * So I believe by those two sources alone it establishes that the GNG is met, there is significant coverage, by independent reliable sources that are totally independent of Natalie Claro. I am pinging everyone who voted "Delete" with the reason that the article does not establish notability just to be sure they're aware of the GNG criteria and the article meeting them.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A heretofore regional, non notable subject, possibly a case of WP: TOO SOON. Written by a WP:SPA contributor, it reads as if it’s purpose it to further the career of the subject rather than being based on objective reportage. Note to User:Metaphorical analysis. The key wording you are overlooking in the criteria for   WP:NMUSIC is: "May be notable if..." This means that to simply meet the criteria is a start, but not an automatic qualifier. The sources you are citing above are not indicative of significant coverage. The Tampa Bay Online (a.k.a. TBO) article does not carry the same weight as the Tampa Bay Times proper. Rather, it is an online only service owned by the Times that promotes stories of local interest. The interview with the subject (which consist of her talking about her pursuit of a music career) is the equivalent on a notability scale with that of a quarterback for the local high school who talks about his amazing yardage stats and how he hopes to turn pro someday. When assessing such a reference, its helpful to be aware of WP:EDPN. The other independent reference, JamSphere, is of dubious merit. All other references, as noted, are from user generated sites. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ShelbyMarion You are partially right about the TBO, however the content was also printed in the Tampa Bay Times Newspaper. Yes, they utilize there Tampa Bay Online source for all their articles. I understand that those of you who edit and determine whether a page should be deleted cannot be everywhere, but there are many similar pages not nominated for deletion, however is given the time for corrections and updating, and support from other editors. In reference to WP:SPA contributor, I think all editors start somewhere and usually with topics they enjoy. I am here to contribute just like the more experienced editors Metaphorical analysis (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Purplechocolatebunny Hi there, I was also asked to help someone with this article, so I must refrain from voting as well.  Excuse me if I'm not using Talk correctly, I'm still a bit unfamiliar with it.  It appears to me that some of these sources are good, though it could use more; but the writing of the article seems rather subjective.  The subject seems fairly relevant to me as this is a person of notability within the music scene of a major metropolitan area.  Additionally, other independent sources citing her notability do exist.  If the article is rewritten & more sources added, will that make a difference?    User:Purplechocolatebunny  5:33 UTC 13 August2016  —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not "more" but "better" sources are needed. If you can provide them it would help this article. Independent for independencies sake is not enough. Avoid citing music websites/blogs whose primary purpose is promotional, even if they are independent of the subject's (or subject's management's) involvement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the guideline says "significant coverage", which they are, it says " iindependent" which they are, it says "reliable sources" which a newspaper and a magazine with an editorial process are. Notice it does not exclude "regional sources". So " better" in wheat sense? And a magazine about music should be avoided? Is Sports Illustrated to be avoided for athletes?  MPJ  -DK 12:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, reread WP:MUSIC and note the emphasis on the words: “may be notable…” To think: “Hey, a newspaper and a magazine have an article about a person. They qualify for a wikipedia article” is a flawed viewpoint. Please consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is a difference in significance between an article of reportorial nature that appears in a major metro area, picked up by a wire service and carried elsewhere versus a personal interest profile (one that contains her promotional booking information, no less) that runs in the “Northwest News” section of the paper (yes, I do research these kinds of things.) Or consider Rolling Stone verse a source like Rock at Night, a website where the bottom of the main page openly solicits content with the sentence: “In a band? Have news? Want to submit an article or photo?” One is a credible source with independent editorial oversight. The other is questionable in that it openly solicits content from those who are looking to use their vehicle as promotion. This is the kind of thing that makes it a bad source. And there are many music websites just like it. Their merits need to be weighed individually. Likewise, any kind of social media numbers (page hits, file downloads, video views, etc.) can never be used as an indicator of notably, primarily because it is easy to acquire/purchase “hits” for those wishing to promote their own notability. That’s not a accusation in this case, rather a statement of why wikipedia discounts them. So, yeah, I take all this into account before I vote delete. My position, contrary to yours, is that the subject has not displayed significant coverage that would convey notability. Look, I have no skin in the game regarding Ms. Claro’s aspirations. I’m assuming she has talent and I wish her luck. But lets call it as it is: a performer in the business for only a short time, largely self-produced and financed (per her own statements on social media) and who, with a single exception (performing at a weekend festival in New Jersey) has yet to significantly break out beyond her native region. I agree that being regional in nature is not an automatic disqualifier. But her performance schedule past and present, per her website and social media, are at venues that are unlikely to add weight to an argument that she is a major figure in the Florida music scene. But, as I stated in my original post, she may get there someday. Just not yet per evidence provided. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * GNC is not subservient to specialized criteria, thery supplement the GNC as a guideline if the GNC status is borderline. GNC is met, nothing can restrict that.  MPJ  -DK 15:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you are overlooking the phrase "may be notable..." which is up front in the first sentence as a declarative for WP:MUSIC. We are in agreement with the criteria for GNC. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Metaphorical analysis I have to agree with MPJ-DK In fact WP:MUSIC clearly states that this article meets the Wikipedia's criteria. This is what it states: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.  Notability on this article is not a flawed view point.  After reading some editors bios it has come to my conclusion that some editors have their own opinions and criteria.  It doesn't say in in WP:MUSIC that you have to have global, national or regional notoriety.  It gives specific requirements and they are met here.  After the requirements are met, it seems that it is opinion of others whether to delete or keep.  I am learning about wikipedia, and I am learning that it is also organized by opinion. As I stated before there are 100's of articles/pages that have been unfinished, unedited with no citations on Wikipedia, yet those pages are still standing. So if I had created this page, and limited the information perhaps it wouldn't be on AFD today.  I am no way taking this personally, but it sounds to me that some others here are doing just that, basing their vote on their personal opinion. Being that "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour."  You are determining a persons nobility on their income status meaning a musician should only be provided a wikipedia page if they are signed by a major record label, and that they should have a Grammy.  Some people have achieved a milestone, and all milestones can have credibility.  The comment about WP: TOO SOON is clearly just opinion. Wikipedia states   "if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered" HOWEVER, again Natalie Claro does meet one of them. Some of you are discrediting newspapers because articles are in a certain sections of a paper.  The article is completely defined about Natalie Claro, and just because the writer disclosed means of contact doesn't make the article any less than the next.  A newspaper that is from a major city, and delivered on doorsteps is just as powerful as any other newspaper.  You are discrediting everywhere because of your personal stance and not facts. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I have completely read through this discussion. Everyone has good points, however Wikipedia has criteria and we need to stick to this. It appears from reading both sides, that this page should not be deleted. FairlySavvy (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep After going through all details I must say that this article has less third party independent media. Only MTVs link seemed lil good but they had brief mention. The TBO link was fine and detailed for notability. More such links are required to establish the notability. Other links are mostly of social media such as facebook and tumbler which should not be used. The subject might be notable for other links not mentioned. So an in-depth online research should be made before reaching to any conclusion.Natalia.chase (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Natalie Claro have enough sources which proves the independent notability of her as per encyclopedia Guidelines.As per the other content which require significant coverage there has to be added secondary sources to prove the notability.yes she meets the criteria of the musician but article bust be improved as per references. "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere" these two article clearly shows. Imvaio123 (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In reference to Jamsphere. The magazine is print and online.  From what I can see has been global since 2012.  They have articles about indie artists to the grammy winners.  Not sure why some are lead to believe that its "of dubious merit". Most sources receive press releases daily, and to discount an international magazine doesn't make sense to me. So, i think we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS covered. Metaphorical analysis (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hopefully we can get more neutral voters to take part in this discussion beyond User:Metaphorical analysis (who’s first article is the article in question, account created on July 28th, 2016), User:FairlySavvy (account created on August 12th, 2016), and MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny (who have been asked or paid to contribute to the debate). Aust331 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I am new to this but so were others at some point. Everyone has their first edit, their first article or first discussion. I don't see why my words or vote should be discredited. I'm here to help just like everyone else. FairlySavvy (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The rationale behind the acceptance of the article was that the subject was found notable for "Tampa Bay Times" and "Jamsphere". As a matter of fact it has adequate third party and worthy references to meet The General Notabiliy Guideline. Her interview by Raven on "Rock at Night" shows her significant coverage in reliable sources. However the subject does not fall under Too Soon because  it is considered only if the sources do not exist. Therefore I feel that the subject should not be denied space.Isabellabrice (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep In early age she makes career and launch successful album like "Stumble" and "Baby Bug", she won prize as best local singer & songwriter. so this page should not be deleted.Dainy 123 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. It is early in her career and so far she has not achieved the notability required by WP:BIO or the track record required by WP:NMUSIC. The references do not meet our criteria as Reliable Sources, with the exception of the one item in the Tampa Bay Times; we need multiple reliable sources and we need a little broader coverage than just her hometown paper. It's possible that in a year or two she may meet the criteria, but she doesn't now. I'm sure the closing administrator will take note of the huge flood of "keep" !voters here who, while not strictly special purpose accounts, still seem suspiciously attracted to this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Metaphorical analysis I'm just curious why "suspicious" and opinions are how we decide a Wikipedia page. We need to weed out opinions, votes and just use the facts.  It seems to me that some people have made this argument about winning the discussion rather than addressing the guidelines, and if the article in question meets the threshold or not.  Wikipedia has guidelines and keeping an article out that is deserving is just as bad as allowing one that is not.  The guidelines are not meant for interpretation by editors rather should be followed specifically.  Saying that criteria is not a Reliable Source when Jamsphere has been published globally since 2012 is just an opinion.  Saying that the subject does not have a long enough track record, or not notable because sources are not widespread, is also opinion. We should be focused on WP:MUSIC  which is very specific versus  WP:BIO  Metaphorical analysis (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (a weak one) Pageviews often correlate with notability and she's getting about 60+ a day which means I'll keep checking since it might be her fan club. There's some in-depth coverage here (although not a news source I am aware of) and some coverage here and a press release here and a search of Florida media found mostly press releases like this press release. Sometimes I look at what I call image consistency -- to see if it's one person or many -- suggests one person with quite a few images -- so there is promotional work going on. One video had 28,000 views which looks like her most popular one; other videos didn't really register much, so my sense is she's got a good voice and a circle of friends and well-wishers working to promote her, perhaps who help her design her covers but haven't yet figured out that she needs more reviews on Amazon? She has a good singing voice and she's pretty and I'd like to find a way to keep her in Wikipedia but I don't think the sources are there yet, but when they are, post a note on my talk page and I'll refloat the article so it doesn't get deleted, maybe in a year's time; right now I think it's too soon--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with context to the above user if she has a good fan follower there should not be any issue regarding notability i believe that subject is notable See references #1,3,5,13, they itslef clears the evidence, I must say referencing should be done well as contents.Weather the guidelines itself not clear between the admins. When we look for the resources, none of the resources of subject are irrelevant.And it is well said it is not the question weather to keep or delete and winning debate, it is to help wikipedia.Wikihow1 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. This should be about helping wikipedia. However, see my comment below. The evidence suggests this discussion is more about helping people who wish to promote Natalie Claro.
 * Note to admin Evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, WP:MEATPUPPETRY and/or WP:VOTESTACK, or some variation thereof. Natalie Claro posted on facebook that this page was going to be deleted “unless someone convinces them otherwise.” A followup post by a 2nd party reads: “I created an editor page on wikipedia to save your page, but we might need more people to go there to create profiles and vote keep.” See: https://www.facebook.com/natalieclaromusic/posts/51583970528221  As noted by others, there are several new editors who have created accounts after this article’s nom, and their first action was to log into this discussion. It’s also worth noting there are older editors arguing keep who have never before participated in ADF discussions. Apparently, out of the blue, they have decided to come here and make their single ADF input to keep this article. Two of them, in fact, have not participated in wiki edits of any kind for over a year. What are the odds they would suddenly show an interest in saving this article while otherwise showing no interest in the ADF process? Considering there is evidence of help—paid or otherwise—being solicited (fairly disclosed by users MPJ-DK and Purplechocolatebunny) one has to question if any of these “keeps” are being entered in good faith. Every single one seems to have been compromised by an overzealous misuse of WP:CANVAS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admin I hardly think a 16 year old girl has these intentions other than sharing with her fans what's going on is her life. I don't see vote stacking occurring because as it appears it looks like there are the same amount of votes happening. And regardless, it's my understanding that you the admin will read the discussion and the arguments/facts presented and the VOTES of keep or delete have no bearing on your decision. If editors cruise in and out of Wikipedia, I believe that is just their choice. I'm new to Wikipedia by means of creating a user name, and I have been envolved with several AFD since. This nomination attracted me because i just see editors on the attack rather than truly justifying their comments. They all at some point in their discussion agree that this article meets the guidelines, but then contradicts themselves with TOO SOON.  Come on people, let's be serious. We are all here together to participate in information for the public. There is value in Natalie Claro and you all see it. It's time to make a decision based on the facts and put a stop to ShelbyMarion overzealous opinions FairlySavvy (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * one more thing user:ShelbyMarion takes such interest in this article that I question his credibility. For someone so active in the Wikipedia community I find it odd and questionable that his only focus has been on the deletion of this article and the subject Natalie Claro since it was nominated, and no other articles or editing has he shown interest in.  Perhaps he is the one who has been paid to Vote delete.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=ShelbyMarion&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1FairlySavvy (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking to my edit history so that the admins can see that my work here is consistent with my statement on my profile page. I generally check in once a week or so and do a quick perusal of ADF to offer my help to make wikipedia better. My greatest value to the wikipedia community is that my background in marketing, advertising, publishing, design and promotion gives me special insight how the creative arts community is marketed, and I root out non-notable creative types who attempt to abuse wiki for promotional purpose. I'm fairly adept at spotting press that is the result of promotional muscle because for about 6 years I was a partner in such a company. The small, independent music press is especially easy to get coverage. Trust me. We used to hype “the next big thing” for every artist who partnered with our client. It was pretty routine getting editors and writers onboard. Anyway, during my check in last week someone’s argument on the Natalie Claro page caught my attention, so I weighed in as necessary, largely supportive of the idea that this young artist is possibly on track to achieving wiki notability but was not there yet based on weak sources. The next time I checked in (today) I see it’s still going on. Unlike many editors who simply google a word and vote keep or delete based on hits, I actually click on most links to see if there is indeed merit. When I saw there was such a vigorous defense to save this page, I double checked my work. That’s when I saw the incriminating stuff on Ms. Claro’s Facebook page. But now that the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY has been outed, I see the post has been removed. Not to worry: I have encountered this kind of thing before and learned to make a screen cap of the post to back up my argument should the closing admin ask to see it. As for me being paid to edit, I LOVE the suggestion.PLEASE DO!!! Anybody…I would love for someone to pay me for this! :) Anyway, that’s about it for my periodical check in. I’m off for the weekend. When I come back next week I’ll be curious to see if the discussion is still going on. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a question that just occurred to me….and surprised it didn’t jump out at me until just now. Given the statement that this page is created and maintained independent of Mr. Claro’s involvement, how is it that she is aware of its nomination? And, more revealingly, how is it that within an hour of being outed for SOCKPUPPETRY, she knows to remove the incriminating post from her facebook page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Comment' wonderful for you to answer. I will continue to question your credibility due to your method of attack. Wikipedia is a public tool. You can't miss that it's been nominated for deletion since its in a big huge box at the top of the article. Second which subject wouldn't follow a discussion that is about them. Most people would know their is a Wikipedia article about them. And I'm sure they visit it often when they first learn. So how would she not see that it' could be deleted. How would a person not see the link to the discussion and follow it. And which 16 year old wouldn't possibly feel like they caused a problem with your method of attack. Of course they would delete something that they are told is WRONG. That indeed was your message to the subject. So carryon now, and go after some other artist pages. I read your bio and understand your story of frustration of the contstruction worker pursuing music, and how much you disliked him having a Wikipedia page. I guess we all have something that drives us to Wilipedia and yours happens to be hate. This is a public forum and we all have the right to participate. Calling people SOCKPUPPETS. Is rude and shouldn't be allowed by any editor. Those are guidelines that will be decided by an admin. What you are doing is just name calling. And if she sees this I encourage her to replace her Faceblook posting because she has the right to share her current affairs with her fans, and it's not a crime. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. We are all here to do just that. I repeat there is absolutely no reason for you to be so rude. Every editor whether new or old or infrequent has a right to edit and discuss. Let the admin decide. FairlySavvy (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Metaphorical analysis So many comments here, and I think its getting a little rough. I strongly feel we need to keep this discussion on the article and refrain from attacking the subject. So let's get back on track here. I have made an edit to the article to include a citation from the Tampa Bay Times, although it is just a mention I do think it helps. I'm glad that others helped with edits to the article, because this is what helps new article contributors learn. The article now has a strong foundation to build on with solid citations and credibility. It is time for the admin to make a decision and everyone here to comment needs to stay focused on the article and guidelines.  Thank you Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Metaphorical analysis So many comments here, and I think its getting a little rough. I strongly feel we need to keep this discussion on the article and refrain from attacking the subject. So let's get back on track here. I have made an edit to the article to include a citation from the Tampa Bay Times, although it is just a mention I do think it helps. I'm glad that others helped with edits to the article, because this is what helps new article contributors learn. The article now has a strong foundation to build on with solid citations and credibility. It is time for the admin to make a decision and everyone here to comment needs to stay focused on the article and guidelines.  Thank you Metaphorical analysis (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2016 (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.