Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naty Botero


 * 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 and move to proper name, leaving redirect --Durin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Naty Botero

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Moved from speedy. Author claims WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 would apply (assuming that she did have a gold record and that Top 40 is a "hit") but no sources. Neutral. ColourBurst 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not withstanding, it's still unsourced and unverifiable. /Blaxthos 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing remains an issue. Unfortunately, the only two sites I can find that list Colombian chart info don't have archives or a way to permanently link a given week (or I can't figure them out). The first shows a song currently in the top 20 here, and there's another which shows two songs in the top 100, with Te Quiero Mucho with 27 weeks on the chart and a peak position of 3 here. There is also this ElTiempo article] that calls her one of the "most known Colombian artists," though gives no statistics to back that up. If anyone can find more/better sourcing that satisfies the verifiability requirements, those might be good places to look. Any suggestions on how the above could be construed into filling the requirements?  Hwonder   talk   contribs  02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, despite above. Most links above are blogs (unreliable and/or primary sources, especially fanblogs), and only one source (first one listed) is nontrivial and appears to be reliable, which fails being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources, the notability requirement. Number of fans etc. is irrelevant, nothing in the notability requirement refers to "is popular". Looks like she may be on her way to being notable, however-if a few more sources write about her, deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. Seraphimblade 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per additional sourcing, but move article to subject's proper name (this one should be left as a redirect) to fit formal tone. Seraphimblade 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - appears notable to me. Has plenty of non-notable coverage:  and especially, which calls her the recommended singer for January (el tiempo is the main newspaper in Columbia); there are more links, but I can't look forever. There are also plenty fans with blogs  , or her "not official blog", as it says in broken English: ). There is plenty of raving about her new video, on and off youtube: . This all seems to show notability, especially for being a singer in a smaller country like Columbia. Part Deux 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You absolutely must be kidding me. Did you read what I said? I gave those blogs in addition to the notable sources. Eskpe.com is a blog? Coverage in El Tiempo, as well, the most notable newspaper in Colubmia, isn't notable? And , . Let's do a comparison: the New York Times picks someone as an artist of the month; this artist has plenty of other coverage (though this isn't as easy to find because it's in Spanish, which has a smaller audience, and is in Columbia). Are you telling me that an artist of the month for the country's most notable newspaper isn't notable? I mentioned several blogs as well, not only blogs. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And here we go: . This was a top 5 song in Columbia in December 2006 (not just on a specific chart either). Which means it not only passes WP:MUSIC by the multiple non-trivial sources (I've now listed several), but it also passes by the Has had a charted hit on any national music chart (as I've just proved) and (terra.com is another extremely notable site in Spanish), and Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network (in Columbia, and on MTV Latino ). Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete unless properly sourced and quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not properly sourced? It gave the Columbian top 40 biography right there! Just because you're not familiar with the site because the site is in Spanish does not mean it's not a trustworthy site. But I've now sourced it better anyway. Part Deux 20:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Amiguette, mi castellano es cerca a perfercto por lo que entiendo la pagina en questión bastante bién. El problema aqui es que se requiere múltiples citas no triviales. Lo que tenemos es una. Alf photoman 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, with the changes made by Hwonder WP:MUSIC should be satisfied Alf photoman 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I've incorporated some of the sourcing. A note that Los 40 Principales is not a blog, but rather the official site by a major radio conglomerate owning 8 Colombian stations and several dozen in Latin America. It could still stand for some clean up, and more "gringo"-friendly sources after the U.S. release this year, but I think these changes should satisfy WP:MUSIC. Hwonder   talk   contribs  20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- Part Deux 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletions.   -- Part Deux 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
 * keep per aboveOo7565 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Part Deux is right: all the references provided should be more than enough to meet any sane person's notability criteria.  --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part Deux has provided ample evidence of notability. Vassyana 11:36, 1 February 2007 (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.