Talk:Rachel Santesso

Previous AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Santesso closed as delete. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Duruflerequiem (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and have been enjoying creating and editing articles which are interesting to me. I have just spent ages creating a new page only to find out it is up for a speedy deletion. After reading the reasons why, I am somewhat confused. I found some of the remarks in the debate to be petty or personal (to put it kindly). My subject is specifically named in a number of major press articles, from Guardian to the NME to Time Magazine. She has apparently conducted major motion picture soundtracks even in the months following the deletion. Is there any way I can salvage the work I have put into this page creation? I found so many sources in international press and I am slightly confused- and if I am honest, a little dismayed. In any case, thanks for your time!

Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry your first experience here has been discouraging. Would you like to move this article to your user sandbox, to give you some time to work on it? You might be able to improve it to the point where it won't be deleted, if you can find new information on her work, new press coverage, etc. Thanks, NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, I appreciate it. I would be grateful if you could find the time to answer these questions: 1. It looks like I did add quite a bit of new information compared to the old page...is it a question of length? 2. How much more would be necessary in order to stop deletion? 3. If this artist continues to appear in the press, what is to say her name won't continue to be flagged for speedy deletion?

Thanks very much for your time and help.Duruflerequiem (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Returning with the hope that I can salvage the page that I spent time on today. I am hoping that a fellow Wikipedian could please explain how this artist is flagged for speedy deletion in spite of the level of press she has had- and quite notable achievements (reviews for her soprano recordings from BBC, International Record Review, American Record Guide, Fanfare), founding and directing a choir that currently has 7 million views on YouTube and a great deal of international press --while countless other artists have had no notable press whatsoever (to name two pages: Taylor McFerrin and Bleeding Oath). I am sorry to continue asking questions but I am genuinely baffled- especially now that I have seen the debate. I only want to improve. Looking forward to hearing from someone, with appreciation. Best, Duruflerequiem (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Duruflerequiem, the "rule" is that if an article has been deleted via an AfD discussion, it cannot be recreated in substantially the same form. An administrator will compare the two versions and if they are substantially the same with no improvement in referencing and content, the "new" version will be deleted. The admin's judgement will be based solely on that criteria. What this article lacks and the reason why it was deleted at the AfD are articles devoted to Santesso herself, not to Lily Allen whom she taught as a child, not to the Capital Children's choir and the songs they cover, but to her. The current sources, all of them brief in themselves and most of them PR blurbs for the choir, merely mention her either with respect to Lily Allen or to the choir. The Time article doesn't mention her at all. The Guardian article is devoted to 20+ celebrities with brief quotes about them during their school days from their teachers. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Luminous99 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Noticed this page had been taken down before - unsure as to why. Santesso has been covered by several major news outlets... her involvement with Lily Allen and the fact she founded the Capital Children's Choir are two fairly significant things. Lily Allen is a major pop artist and the capital children's choir have millions of views on youtube. And then there's the classical stuff which I know less about but which all seems properly sourced.

Moved to AfC

I'm endorsing the speedy to a degree. While the article was mildly different than the version deleted at AfD, it did not make any new claims or bring in any new sourcing that would establish that Santesso would now pass WP:MUSBIO. I would say that the children's choir is notable enough for its own entry (which currently exists) but this appears to be the only thing that she's really received any sort of coverage for. What any new article would need to establish is how Santesso is independently notable of the choir.

She did work with Lily Allen, but she didn't really gain any coverage for this beyond a few minor mentions and one or two articles. The expectation with this part of the notability guidelines is that she'd have been such a large influence that articles, books, or academic literature would have been written specifically about Santesso or she'd be routinely mentioned in-depth in literature about Allen. The sourcing in this article doesn't establish that and the general rule of thumb is that if someone is considered to be a major impact on someone, they'll have received coverage enough to make the mentor angle a moot point. A few lines in a Guardian article isn't enough, nor is a video posted to Fanpop, especially since they accept user generated content. An example of what would typically be considered enough to show notability for this point would be something like a lengthy mention in an academic source about the notable person they influenced, like Selznick in this book about Hitchcock.

That said, I see no reason why this can't sit in AfC and be worked upon until notability can be established. The article will need a lot of work source-wise, since very few of the sources here can really establish notability. It also has some issues with promotional-ish prose like "As a soprano, Santesso specialises in the unknown repertoire of prominent classical composers." This is a little OR considering that the source backing it up doesn't explicitly state this, plus it's also a little WP:BUZZWORD-y, which is a sure-fire way to bring negative attention to an article.

Here's a rundown of the sources:

Sources

Capital Choir This is a dead link, but it goes to the choir page itself. This is seen as a WP:PRIMARY source, which cannot establish notability. At best a primary source can back up minor details. Deux Elles. This appears to be the company that is releasing her work. At best it'd be primary, but at worst it's also an e-commerce site that would allow you to purchase items. Offhand this isn't really needed since there are other, better ways to establish that Santesso is in charge of the choir and if there's a Discogs listing (there should be), that can establish the existence of the album - although offhand albums rarely need to prove their existence. Schott Music. This is another primary source. It's also used to back up the above quote, which is problematic for various reasons. Arkiv Music. Primary, also an e-commerce site, so I'd recommend heavily that this not be used. E-commerce sites are very heavily frowned upon on Wikipedia and make articles seem instantly promotional, as usage of e-commerce sites can be seen as an endorsement of the site or the product for sale by Wikipedia. IMDb. IMDb isn't usable as a reliable source. A quick look on the net shows that Santesso was directing the Capital Children's Choir, who was performing for the film, so this wouldn't establish notability for her outside of the choir. Time. This doesn't mention Santesso and is about the choir. It could potentially show notability for the choir, but not show that she's independently notable. I am concerned that this, along with several similar articles, are fairly brief and mostly just focus on telling people to watch the video. Stuff like this is considered to be somewhat dubious with showing notability for bands or choirs, so it especially wouldn't be able to establish notability for Santesso. It runs the risk of being seen as a WP:TRIVIAL source. Popcrush. She's mentioned here in passing, but the article is about the choir, not Santesso. The other thing is that this article only states that Gaga tweeted about the band. This isn't entirely the same thing as her giving a lengthy review. (I know this because I'd unsuccessfully tried to argue for this to be usable in the past and it's deemed trivial coverage by the performer.) NME. Same issue here. NME. Same issue here, only she's not mentioned. Kudos Records. Another primary source, I also note that the company directly sells music so that also makes it an e-commerce site. AllMusic. AM is fine as a source, but reviews can only show notability in specific circumstances. First, they have to be a staff review. Secondly, the review must either be about something specifically by the performer or (if they performed in a supportive role) they have to be specifically mentioned in the review. Thirdly, in this instance her contributions would have to be done independently of the choir. If she was there directing the choir, that would not be able to establish notability independent of the CCC. Daily Mail. The DM is a tabloid and while it's not seen as an out-and-out unreliable source, it's not encouraged that we use the paper. In this case the article contains content written by Santesso, which makes it a primary source of sorts, and it doesn't really go into a lot of depth about Santesso as she relates to Allen. Standard. This one does go into a little more depth, but it's primarily about the choir. What you need to be able to show is where outlets are covering Santesso, not the choir. If we do consider this usable, this still wouldn't be enough by itself to establish notability for Santesso-as-mentor. Guardian. This is a brief snippet of content that Santesso wrote about her relationship with Allen, so it'd be considered primary. It wouldn't be something that could establish notability for her in this context, although normally the Guardian is a reliable source. Fanpop. This is rarely a reliable source since they accept user content fairly easily. In this situation what you have here is a link to a YT video that we cannot access, so it cannot show notability.

I'm not against the idea of this being recreated in the future, but this version just didn't establish how this overcame the prior issues at AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Also, as far as the prior albums go, those can only show notability if there are reviews for the albums that mention her. For example, if there was a review in a reliable source that was about one of the albums she put out as the lead singer, that would be considered usable. If it's one of the albums where she played a supporting role (not directing the CCC) then the review would have to specifically mention her. The reason for this is that there are many cases where albums will have several people performing (some albums have hundreds of musicians participating, in the case of large orchestras), so it's key to have something that highlights the individual performances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another note: it's really, really difficult to establish notability as a mentor or inspiration for someone, since that requires just as much, if not more, coverage than you'd have for something like a CD release. I'd say that the best way to establish notability here would be to try to find reviews for her work that don't pertain to the choir and to see if she's mentioned. She has notability for the choir, you just need to establish how she's notable in ways that aren't related to the choir or to Allen, since a quick search doesn't really show where the coverage is there to establish notability via that avenue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• For example, I found this article by Fanfare that mentions a prior review about Santesso's 2005 album. That could probably be used to help assert notability, even though it's not the review in question. Ideally we'd be able to point to the review in question, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I did some searching tonight and I found the review in question, along with some other reviews for the album. I think that the coverage for the album (recorded independently of the choir) along with the coverage for the choir itself should be enough for her to pass NBIO now. I'm going to move it back to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tokyogirl79, I can't thank you enough for your guidance. Thank you very much for taking the time to so painstakingly go through each of the sources that I used- and for explaining the rules to me so clearly. I am now excited to continue using Wikipedia and I hope that I will improve quickly. Thank you for your kindness, and for giving my contribution a chance.Duruflerequiem (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not a problem - stuff like this is always a bit tricky, so I can understand both sides on this. I'm just glad that I was able to find sourcing. I did get the impression that there's likely more out there for her non-choir work, it's just likely not in places that would show up in most databases or web searches. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)