Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Lo Surdo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. When discounting SPAs and conflicted editors, consensus is that there isn't enough to merit an article at this time. Star Mississippi 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Lo Surdo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Davide Lo Surdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this person meets any of the criteria in the guidelines about notability for musicians. This article has been subject to a staggering amount of promotional editing by single-purpose accounts and IP editors both here and on other wikis (example). Once the promotion is removed, I'm afraid there's really not much left except "This guy is a guitarist and some national offshoot of a respected magazine says he's the fastest in the world" ... and I can't find much else that doesn't feed off that, besides trivial tour coverage. Nothing in the international Rolling Stone, nothing (let alone anything significant) in Guitar Player, etc.) The article needs some TNT, at the least. Graham87 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just not seeing enough to meet the referenced criteria. No significant international coverage, album charting, etc.Intothatdarkness 19:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having international coverage isn't important; having national coverage is (otherwise we would delete numerous British by-election articles that get barely passing mentions elsewhere) and being mentioned multiple times in Rolling Stone seems to indicate the article can be further improved. We don't require sources to be in English. The version I passed at AfC seems to be okay as a basic, well-sourced biography. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we don't require sources in English, but extraordinary claims (like the one that underpins this article) require extraordinary evidence and I'm just not finding any in the usual places. I'd also expect to find more in-depth sources in English if he was as world-renowned as the article says he is, just because English is such a widely used language around the world and there are many high-quality music publications in English. Also Rolling Stone Brazil isn't quite the same thing as Rolling Stone ... and he's Italian, not Brazilian. Graham87 16:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put it another way: If this was an article about, say, an Italian singer whose work was ranked highly in only the Italian charts, I'd have no problem with the page's existence and I'd expect most of the good sources about the subject to be in Italian. But that's not what we have in this case, and something just seems ... off here, with all the highly promotional references that seem to be in a feedback loop. The logs for this page on the Italian Wikipedia are telling. I think I've probably said enough now. Graham87 16:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      hello, i fixed the page cleaning up and fixing some stuff.
      i removed the description from el mercurio as living legend, fixed the music history book news in career, so now the page looks more neutral 91.80.1.71 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing AFC just means it passed AFC (which is no dig at them...they do important work). It doesn't automatically mean the sources are good or fully sufficient. I remain concerned by both the apparent promotional editing and the haphazard sourcing. And if "fastest guitarist ever" is a thing, we'd have articles on every guitarist Mike Varney ever signed (since he routinely made the same claim about them). Intothatdarkness 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, that's why in the article it's written "Rolling Stone described him as the fastest guitarist in the history of music". it's a description from Rolling Stone Brasil, only this so. it's totally fine. The article claims that RS Brasil described him like this. I suggest to add Brasil in the context of the phrase. Johnmarrys (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also just fixed the Sanremo Award with the wikilink and the source from RS Brazil Johnmarrys (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one don't entirely trust the Rolling Stone Brazil article, based largely on the Google translation (but I can read a bit of Portuguese via my limited Italian). It doesn't have a byline, it mostly expresses his own point of view, and there's nothing there to make me think it's independent enough of the subject to really count here. Again I question whether there has been a conflict of interest involved in the creation and editing of this Wikipedia article and even the Rolling Stone Brazill article. (Adendum: even the international version of Rolling Stone magazine is not always beyond reproach on Wikipedia; see its various entries on the perennial sources page). Graham87 15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That and given the people he's purported to have played with (Vai, Loomis, and others) I would expect to see far more coverage. Blabbermouth and other outlets at least. So I remain skeptical about real notability. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough stuff for a Wikipedia page. Big coverage on Rolling Stone Brasil. Coverage also on Los Tiempos, El Mercurio (Ecuador), DBC News, The Free Press Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarrys (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Johnmarrys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep now the page looks better. before it was a lot of evident spam but i cleaned up and improved the page. The page only needed some work.91.80.1.71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.1.71 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Fastest guitarist" is certainly a notable accolade, and he appears to have the coverage. 129 notes per second seems extremely hard to believe though, even though his speed is insane. Here he is as a kid with Steve Vai [1], he seems to have been regarded as a sort of child prodigy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed re the speed ... I've looked into this a bit and Guinness World Records no longer accepts applications like that. The latest such record I can find is about 41 notes per minute in 2012 but the record-breaker doesn't appear to have an article here (not that that's an appropriate argument). We can agree to disagree about the coverage though. Graham87 17:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      40 notes per second it says. Yeah that seems about right as what is possible as an extreme, 129 notes seems impossible to me speaking as an accomplished guitarist myself, it would mean each note would be executed faster than 0.01 of a second which is obvious utter nonsense. He is a freakishly fast though, he certainly has something really extraordinary with speed. He appears to have been awarded at a major Italian music ceremony for this though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I just did a test with a Jim Dunlop 0.38 pick (the thinnest), I would say I can do roughly 27 notes (with three sweeps with 9 notes) and 20 notes a second with fast chromatic legato. A second is nothing, 129 notes I just don't think that is physically possible!! Even 40 is pretty insane. It would be a notable accolade, if it was certified by Guinness, which it hasn't been though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow! It says 40 notes per second for the old record, but 620 beats per minute for the new one; that works out to 2,480 notes in a minute (at four semiquavers per beat), giving about 41-and-a-third notes per second, give or take. The Rolling Stone Brazil source said that just about any distinct noise was counted as a note so ... I dunno. I'm as useful at playing a guitar as a goldfish so I'll defer to your expertise here. Graham87 18:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)  [reply]
      Yup, that's very dubious. The fastest jazz tunes are typically around 340 beats per minute, it's the guitar equivalent of racing a Lamborghini at top speed, the tank will run out quickly! This is 330 bpm for instance. We're talking nearly twice that speed. Sorry to go off on a tangent from commenting on the notability and sources, but it's relevant and quite interesting given that his claim to notability is how fast he can play. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually "noises that have a kind of beat" is the full Google translation of the relevant passage and that seems about right to me per Wiktionary and what little I know about Romance languages. Graham87 06:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to have enough coverage to be included on Wikipedia.Enrico Manni (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Enrico Manni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Note: This account created the Portuguese and Spanish versions of the article, the only versions that currently exist besides the English article. Many of their enwiki edits have been disruption in the article namespace and on AFD's, for which I have blocked them, along with an attempt to create an article about Sigal Music Museum (which they also created on eswiki). I'll take this to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Graham87 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If The source is correct regarding the Sanremo Music Awards, and if the majority of the sources are truly independent, that is good. However it looks like the sources are only ostensibly independent. He claims that he is "Included... in Music History Book 'Rock Memories 2'" and he is on the cover of this obscure book and was interviewed by the author. 129 notes per minute is obviously fake, though. That is audio rate: about 1 octave below middle C! Chamaemelum (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I never thought of the 129 hz comparison. This relatively new account (who says they're a returned editor) just recently had a dispute with me at Talk:Irregardless, however ... not sure how much bearing it has on this discussion. Graham87 06:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do these for fun, and didn't realize the possibility of a mini-conflict of interest because you nominated it (I wouldn't have commented), but no grudges are harbored. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    Delete due to the sheer extent of the dishonest articles online. 19 monthly listeners on Spotify. I know it looks notable at first glance but look into this further and you'll see what I mean. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing some researches now I found that this is the link of the book https://www.mondadoristore.it/Rock-memories-2-Bagliori-Maurizio-Baiata/eai978886623491/ and in the details on the Mondadori site as genre of the book is also written "music history". Johnmarrys (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on what it says in the book. Btw, if you really care about "music history", go for it. But I'm letting you know that you may not have the right understanding of the nuance of this phrase in English. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about music history, I just shared here the link of the book where it's claimed to be featured, that's all. Cheers Johnmarrys (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note i already voted for keep the page but as i suggested to Graham i would keep the page for now and see how it evolves with the time since new references from notable sites have been added in the past months.
    for now it has enough significant coverage for keep it.i will answer your opinions if necessary. thank you and good luck everyone. god bless Enrico Manni (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found some new independent sources that shows the verifiability of the claims.
Checking out online and adding on wikipedia Johnmarrys (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but while the most promising source you added does verify the award he received from the Sanremo Music Awards], apart from that it just parrots most of the already-known claims about him (e.g. being the fastest guitarist in the world, his alleged ability to play 129 notes in a second) without question or deeper analysis ... and throws in some more speculation about how great he'll be in the future. This is a less extreme version of the Jacob Barnett saga, where the media/some lower-quality specialist sites just parrot claims that simply don't stand up to proper scrutiny. Graham87 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is why in my opinion, the best thing to do, as already done, remove the 129 notes per second on Wikipedia (done) and leave Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 described him the fastest guitarist in history because this is true. RS 🇧🇷 described him like this Johnmarrys (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t have to write on his page that he is the fastest guitarist in history but as it’s already on the page, write and keep that rolling stone 🇧🇷 described him like this. This doesn’t mean he is fastest. It’s a claim from Rolling stone 🇧🇷.
It means “For Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 he is the fastest guitarist in history” that’s all Johnmarrys (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And being awarded by the Sanremo music is a very notable thing Johnmarrys (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Rolling Stone Brazil is not the same thing as Rolling Stone at all. I have my own ideas about what to do with this article if this AFD doesn't result in a deletion, but I'll keep them to myself until (or unless) that eventuates. Also, he is perfectly capable of speaking English (see after a minute or so), which makes the lack of good English references about him even more suspicious. Charitably it's a case of WP:TOOSOON ... Graham87 16:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone Brazil is featured on the page of Rolling Stone in the international editions and i am sorry to tell you but Rolling Stone is the most notable music magazine in the world along with Billboard (magazine).
You are having your own ideas and it’s ok but you can’t say that Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 didn’t described him as the fastest guitarist in history because this is a fact and not an idea because they described him like this.Johnmarrys (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stone 🇧🇷 is an international edition of Rolling Stone which is the most important music magazine in the world and i am not agree when you say that it’s not notable enough and that their sources are dubious because every Rolling stone is notable including Italian rolling stone, France rolling stone etc. Johnmarrys (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Rolling Stone' is used unqualified with no further context, it usually refers to the American magazine, as it does on the Portuguese Wikipedia, for example. Saying that an article was published in the American magazine when it was only published in a national edition is lazy at best and blatantly dishonest at worst, trading on the good name of an internationally renowned publication. So no you can't say he was described that way in Rolling Stone magazine because he wasn't; that was only the case for one article in Rolling Stone Brasil. It's just like The Guardian is not the same as Guardian Australia (though in this case they're published by the same people). Graham87 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok man and i understand your point of view but Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 is notable and today i also showed an added the verification source of the Sanremo Music Awards which is a notable thing and he was awarded at this notable event as the fastest so now the page can be keeped on wikipedia without problems.
and he received a good coverage on Rolling Stone 🇧🇷. 6 articles.
your ideas on the fastest guitarist thing are yours and it’s ok but on Wikipedia it’s written that he is described like this, NOT that he is the fastest, so the page can be keeped on wikipedia. Johnmarrys (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnmarrys I recommend writing "Rolling Stone Brazil" instead of "Rolling Stone" followed by the Brazilian flag to avoid confusion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Ok thanks for saying. I will from now on Johnmarrys (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth this edit was exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when making my above comment about what I'd do with the article if it were kept. Graham87 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bink here. I should point out that a bunch of the cited sources don't contribute to notability. Some of the news pieces cite Rolling Stone Brasil, putting them into a lesser position behind the original magazine article, which in any case is bent on promoting its own concert rather than writing objectively. Other sources are interviews which don't count toward notability. The biggest problem is the claim to have won at San Remo in 2020, which cannot be verified in sources dedicated to listing San Remo winners. In any case, solo instrumentalists do not compete unless they sing, and Lo Surdo's tune "Destiny" on the San Remo compilation of 2020 is uninspired instrumental rock, tiresome to hear, appealing perhaps to a very limited audience of shred-heads. This biography gives off the sense of an extensive public relations effort aimed at putting Lo Surdo's name in as many publications as possible. I don't think this guy rises yet to the level of notability. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet it says he was awarded, NOT that he won the song contest because he is an instrumental player.
please take more attention reading Johnmarrys (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says he was awarded as the fastest guitarist so naturally he didn’t won the song contest. It’s an award for his guitar skills Johnmarrys (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insult. I don't see any sources dedicated to listing awards at San Remo describing Lo Surdo as having won an award at San Remo in 2020. Only sources crowing about Lo Surdo's amazing speed say that. His song "Destiny" appears on the 2020 compilation, but that by itself is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I hadn't thought of the Sanremo angle before. It seems that, despite its confusing name, the Sanremo Music Awards are completely unrelated to the more well-known festival (see its Italian site) and again piggy-back on its good name for publicity. I became more suspicious when discovering that none of the artists featured in the 2020 Sanremo Music Awards compilation were mentioned at the extensive article on itwiki about the 2020 Sanremo Festival. (Also, the site that hosts the Sanremo Music Awards, Altervista, had a name that confused me for a bit as a screen reader user because of AltaVista ... and its Wikipedia article just happened to be deleted by Ritchie333, who accepted the articles for creation submission for the Davide Lo Surdo page). Graham87 02:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the above information about the music awards may be important, as that was a reason I didn't say delete right away. [Note: this edit mistakenly used to say "delete".] Chamaemelum (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete these claims about being the "fastest guitarist in history" are not to be taken literally, and should not be presented that way in the article. Beyond that: there are a lot of vague claims, but not enough specific ones to demonstrate that he is notable. And many of the references are not intellectually independent of the Rolling Stone Brasil article. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Rolling Stone coverage the keep votes are leaning on is a brief text summary for a video interview. It's not independent coverage, and it has no byline. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really not sure what to make of this one - there's a bunch of coverage but when you look at the articles which might pass GNG, it's almost a BLP1E. I agree the Rolling Stone Brasil article which this heavily relies on isn't SIGCOV. My overall feeling says it's probably just TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 11 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Davide_Lo_Surdo&oldid=1165969563"