Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polo Piatti

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. Only one of the two "Keep" comments addresses our inclusion standards. Sandstein 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Piatti

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to be notable Nonsenseferret (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) The coverage of the subject seems to comprise local newspaper coverage from the Hastings area, and a reliance on a questionable from the International Biographical Centre whose activities have been described as a scam. The tone and content of the article seem to be purely about self-promotion. I don't see multiple significant independent coverage --Nonsenseferret (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- self promotion perhaps, but the list of works sems long enough for notability: just. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I spotted any criteria in the WP:MUS that this article could fall within - can you point to something in the policy that might help here? Thanks --Nonsenseferret (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having created a lot of works is no evidence at all of notability. There are obscure and non-notable people who have created large amounts of obscure work, while others are extremely notable on the basis of one very successful work. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A long list of works means nothing in terms of notability. There is no verification that they've ever been performed, let alone reviewed. I have been unable to find any evidence that this person has made an impact as a composer. Virtually all of the works are unpublished or self-published as are the recordings. Impromptu Music and Seafront Records are his companies and only publish his works. Some of the earlier stuff was published by a small cooperative press in Germany, Verlag der Kooperative Dürnau. The article has such a long history of self-promotion and "economy with the truth" (to put it diplomatically), that I wouldn't believe anything in it that is not verified with a reference to a reliable independent source. See Talk:Polo Piatti, for more on this issue. Voceditenore (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up very little material about him from reliable sources, and Amazon.com has just a single recording of his music (without any customer review). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, a tedious and excessive piece of self-promotion with peacock language ('known for his extensive work....' by whom exactly?). see also the similar self-promotion The Tides of Time also up (quite rightly) for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought I'd be able to source this, but after looking in Google Germany and Argentina I have to conclude that this person is nowhere near WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the following article for a user User talk:Zaza888 who has expressed an opinion on their own talk page about this article ---- _nonsense ferret 07:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many thanks for your recent explanation. I had a look at the guidelines and I cannot comprehend (with all due respect) why you would put Polo Piatti's notability in question. His CV, past activities and pedigree as a musician, composer and concert pianist around the world do speak for themselves! Unfortunately I am not very good at Wikipedia entries, etc. because I don't really understand how it all really works. But I am prepared to contact a third person supervisor or controller to ask for help because I would find it very inappropriate, unjust and simply unreasonable to delete this article. Finally I, would like to appeal to you to please help me develop or complement the article (only if you consider it necessary) instead of just deleting it. That would certainly be an error of judgement! Many thanks for your understanding. (I hope I have placed this comments in the right place!) Zaza888

I fully understand your concerns. However, for Wikipedia purposes, notability is not decided by what we individually think of a subject's "CV, past activities and pedigree" and what we personally think is "inappropriate, unjust and simply unreasonable". Instead, an attempt is made to use the more objective criterion of how much coverage a subject has received in independent reliable sources. Of course, this does not make it 100% objective, because it is still necessary to make an assessment of how reliable and independent a source is, and how much coverage is considered significant: that is why we have discussions such as this one. In this case, probably the most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (music). I suggest that you have a look at that, and perhaps also a quick look at the general notability guideline. If, when you have read those, you believe that the subject does satisfy the notability requirements, then please come back here, and explain why, making sure that you provide some reliable sources to support your arguments. The guide to identifying reliable sources can be helpful there. (Sorry to have to point you at so many guidelines, which may seem confusing at first. However, I suggest, rather than try to read and learn everything there, that you have a quick glance through, find the bits that seem most relevant, and read those carefully.) If, on the other hand, you can't find reliable sources about the subject, then it probably isn't reliable by Wikipedia standards, and unfortunately you will probably have to accept that the article will go. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find important people who believe he is important. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.