Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Lazzara

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lazzara

There is no referenced independent and notable source that indicates that the subject of this article, a living person, satisfies Wikipedia notability criteria. The subject has never been the nominee or recipient of any "notable award or honor" and there is no indication of any "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The only independent opinion from a notable source that this nominator could find is from Opera News, which described Lazzara as "somewhat feeble-sounding". (Note that this article has previously been deleted per CSD g12 — unambiguous copyright infringement — and many images uploaded by a significant editor have been removed per {{copyvio}}. The complete record of the previous article might help with determination of whether this article should be deleted.) —Danorton (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. —Danorton (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that the article creator, Voceditenore (talk · contribs), reports that he will be absent from Wikipedia until April 23. —Danorton (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not familiar with the notability guidelines at en-wp but I want to add some points:

There is one record for Marco Lazzara at the German Music Archive.
I see a significant number of published CDs at amazon.com where he participated.
He is mentioned once in the New York Times: [..] and Marco Lazzara, a male alto with a dark, rich tone.
RAI has portrayed him as a unique interpret of baroque music and of the 18th century who applied some of these techniques to romantic and contemporary music: Precocemente diplomato in Pianoforte, Organo, Clavicembalo e Canto, Lazzara ha debuttato nel 1989 suscitando subito l'interesse della critica, non solo per la particolarità del suo registro vocale ma anche per la sua forte personalità musicale; a differenza di molti colleghi, legati pressoché esclusivamente ai repertori barocchi e settecenteschi, Lazzara ha applicato la sua musicalissima concezione della vocalità a repertori assai diversi, cimentandosi - unico forse nel suo genere - anche in quelli romantici e in quelli contemporanei (al quale ultimo si ascrivono molte prime esecuzioni).

All this adds to some notability. The main problem with that article, in my opinion, seems to be that Marco Lazzara wrote it himself without the distance of someone else in the style of a personal web page and without any Wikipedia experience (as he never edited any other articles). --AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Writing from a hotel) Just to clarify, I didn't technically create the article. I re-wrote it and redirected Marco lazzara (created by User:Marcolazzara2)[1]. In my view, he passes the criteria for notability of musicians as applied to opera singers. He has sung leading roles in leading opera houses, including several world and Italian premieres and has an extensive discography. The fact that it was created and extensively edited by its subject, shouldn't influence the decision to keep it. I would ask that this AfD please not be closed until I return to my home computer and can edit the article as necessary. -Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I support the request for deferral submitted by Voceditenore (talk · contribs) and further request that no decision be made before April 30. —Danorton (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable even if the article is less than ideal. --Klein zach 22:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now completely re-written this article and added extensive inline citations, something I don't do unless I think an article is worth saving. As can be seen, apart from his performances in several world premieres, he was the subject of an hour-long programme on RAI Radio 5. See also the many other broadcasts he has appeared in [2]. He also has an extensive discography which includes several world premiere recordings. The reference to the Opera '97. Annuario dell'opera lirica in Italia includes excerpts from multiple reviews of his Orfeo. I have to say, that I also found it rather unhelpful for an editor to have summarily removed all the previous sources, which although not attached to inline citations, had backed up his notability and the performances claimed in the original article and provided a starting point for expanding and improving the referencing.[3]. Obviously, a singer appears non-notable, if the only source listed in the article is his own website. The subject recently attempted to redress this by re-adding the references and adding a (badly formatted) discography, but this too was summarily reverted as "vandalism".[4] It is definitely a conflict of interest but not vandalism. I repeat, the article was undoubtedly originally created by the subject as an autobiography (and I sincerely hope he refrains in future from editing this article), but that has no bearing on whether or not he is notable, or whether an article should be deleted. For those of you unfamiliar with the criteria for notability of musicians, and particularly classical musicians, please see the following past AFD discussions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diletta Rizzo Marin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia O'Brien (soprano), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam. Voceditenore (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep updated article shows notability in discography alone--Moloch09 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore, for this excellent work. I think this is best outcome of this DR we can have thought of as the notability is now proven and the article is written from scratch in conformance to WP:NPOV. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 27 April 2009 (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.