Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Bianchi


 * 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 of the debate was to Delete the article. --Konst.ableTalk 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Bianchi
Terrible, embarrassing, self-penned vanity. But lots of claims of notability, which, if true, would make a substantially rewritten article a useful addition. Originally nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, the above stopped me from deleting it but also stopped me from just keeping it. Opinions, please.➨  ЯEDVERS  21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a magazine vanity piece. ReverendG 21:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, stub and rewrite. He meets WP:MUSIC, I think: among other things he's won a Gaudeamus_Prize.   Buck  ets  ofg  21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per db-spam, so tagged. Someone who cares, and who is not Oscar Bianchi, can then do the rewrite Bucketsofg is proposing. Sandstein 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a company, product, group or service as stated by db-spam. This is a person, and he asserts notability under our existing rules. This could be false, or not enough, but it is an assertion of notability as we require. Not a speedy delete and tag removed. ➨  ЯEDVERS  20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right strictly speaking, but since he's essentially presenting himself in his professional capacity as a (presumably paid) musician providing entertainment services, I could also see us applying db-spam per analogiam. That's exactly the sort of text it was created for. Sandstein 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a company, product, group or service as stated by db-spam. This is a person, and he asserts notability under our existing rules. This could be false, or not enough, but it is an assertion of notability as we require. Not a speedy delete and tag removed. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ... Er, yes, thank you, I did read what you wrote the first time around. No point in wasting precious bytes here :-) Sandstein 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of vanity, article created by a user with the same name as the article, so it meets WP:COI. If it's really relevant, let's have other people write the article from a WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dockingman (talk • contribs)
 * I support deletion, but it should be noted that per WP:COI, "an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion". Sandstein 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So your reason for deletion (he says, playing Devil's advocate), would be...? ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ... per db-spam or WP:SPAM ("Advertisements masquerading as articles"), if that's not clear from my above comment. Sandstein 21:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; it's not clear to me that the Gaudeamus prize is sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC, and in any case the article has problems with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Vectro 04:02, 24 October 2006 (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.