Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigo Murillo3

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED during debate as recreated content. jni 13:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rigo Murillo
This article has been recreated as a non-copyvio. Still seems like vanity to me. RickK 07:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) -- Update: see my notes below. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP my research has revealed strong suggestions of notability. If http://users.churchserve.com/tx/inspiringmusic/bio.html is true, he's worked with Ray Charles, Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Jean Pierre Rampal and Doc Severinsen, and has played on several symphony orchestras.  If those aren't credentials for a notable classical musician, what is? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  15:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. On closer reading, I suspect that link doesn't reveal quite the level of notability one would hope for.  The quote from the linked article is, "Throughout his career, he has shared [a] stage along with [such] world-acclaimed artists as...".  Presumably those highly notable artists appeared as soloists while Murillo was a member of the symphony orchestra behind them.  Even if Itzhak Perlman is at the front of the stage, I don't think it makes every member of the orchestra (thirty, fifty, a hundred musicians?) notable.  I would suggest that for a symphony orchestra (one noteworthy in and of itself), only the conductor and maybe the concertmaster are usually above the notability threshold for inclusion.  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, thousands of string players have done studio sessions with famous people, this is an ad for a fiddle player. Wyss 19:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This was previously voted for deletion at VfD/Rigo Murillo (14 Jan 2005) and VfD/Rigo Murillo2 (24 Jan 2005). (The first discussion thread was repeatedly blanked by an anon contributor after the discussion closed.)  This article has also been speedy deleted.  Deletion Log shows:
 * 17:22, 4 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted Rigo Murillo (content was: 'blah')
 * 17:19, 4 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier deleted Rigo Murillo (content was: 'Please, leave Wikipedia ALONE!!!')
 * 17:08, 4 Feb 2005 Fvw deleted Rigo Murillo (deleteagain)
 * 16:52, 4 Feb 2005 Fvw deleted Rigo Murillo (deleteagain)
 * 11:01, 31 Jan 2005 Wile E. Heresiarch deleted Rigo Murillo (per vfd; see: Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo2)
 * 03:04, 21 Jan 2005 SimonP deleted Rigo Murillo (listed on VfD, found to be a copyvio)
 * There is a strong case to speedy delete as recreated content. RickK is probably right that this is just different enough to deserve consideration by the community one last time.  The best evidence of his experience that I could find was a page of his own website.  Even with those, it does not look like he meets the recommended music guidelines.  I'm inclined to delete.  Rossami (talk) 20:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep The current article is a reasonable basis for an article describing his career. What harm does it do? Just put him in the appropriate category or categories. Mr. Jones 20:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This may not be the place for this discussion, but the harm it does is that it undermines Wikipedia's encyclopedic authority in relation to what is notable and significant. People come to an encyclopedia not only to obtain facts about particular subjects, but to understand how the subject is important in relation to some broader context.   Paper encyclopedias have notability thresholds not only because they are "paper", but because the significance filter they apply is one of their most important functions.  Even though Wikipedia does not have those practical constraints, not being paper, it still should apply an importance metric in its selection of subjects and the amount of detail that it provides about them.    If someone does a search on Rigo Murillo and finds a long article, or even any article, about him in the Wikipedia, that person is entitled to believe that Wikipedia considers Murillo to be a notable musician.  The people trying to get vanity articles about themselves into an encyclopedia seem to understand this much better than some of the editors.  They want an article about themselves in the encyclopedia because it means they are important!  If an article doesn't seem to establish why its subject is important, then it will seem to the reader that the article is poorly written and the reader will wonder why it was in the encyclopedia.  If it later turns out that Rigo Murillo is not significant, the Wikipedia will seem unreliable, even if all the information in the article was correct, and a reader will be less inclined to trust its judgement about significance in the future, and perhaps even to question the factual accuracy of the articles.   This is why deletionists waste a lot of time trying to remove "trivia" and "vanity" from the Wikipedia.  It isn't because they are trying to save the project a few pennies on disk space.  --BM 22:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Culling information is not the way to tell people what is notable and significant, if an article has a properly written introduction that will do the job fine. Kappa 04:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if it's well-written, any vanity is okay to keep? RickK 06:10, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually arguing to keep vanity articles, I just oppose the use of quantity of information as a shorthand for importance. While IMO pure vanity isn't really useful information, deletionists vote delete on subjects with verifiable information which significant numbers of people might want to look for. Kappa 07:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete... it's still non-notable vanity about a guy with 59 Google hits. Should that article's page be protected for a while so that it won't keep coming back? --Idont Havaname 04:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speed deleted as a repost of a previously-deleted article. The original was on vfd (Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo), determined to be a copyvio, listed on the copyvio page, then rewritten as a non-copyvio. The non-copyvio version has already been deleted per vfd; see: Votes for deletion/Rigo Murillo2. The author has proven to be a determined vandal as well as a talented musician; unfortunately a desperate need for free advertising is incontrovertible evidence of nonnotability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notabe - 55 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP, There is nothing wrong with musicians' descriptions. This individual's accomplishments and reputation are worthy. --65.134.160.4 13:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for not meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. Note that this judgement is based entirely off the comments on this VfD page, as the article in question doesn't exist at the moment.  If there is something I am missing that makes him notable, please let me know (I'll watch this page) and I will change my vote. Tuf-Kat 03:28, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)