Talk:Antonella Barba

Where's the article?

What happened to the article? Given the scandals surrounding her racy photos, isn't she notable enough to have her own page? Jiggz84 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Get it to at least Start-class first. The best way is to make a draft version in userspace. CrazyC83 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how I would be able to make this an article? 27calvin 1:29, March 10 2007

The redirect is currently protected, so you have to ask an admin to unprotect it. Natalie 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If an admin reads this, please unprotect the redirect! I really want to make an article on Antonella she is my Idol. 27calvin 8:33 pm 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This should definitely be unprotected. Antonella has been the number-one searched person on the internet the past few weeks. The scandal has been covered on CNN, Fox News, many tv/radio shows, and hundreds of publications, newspapers, and magazines. It's become the most notable scandal in pop culture this year and in Idol history. --musicpvm 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a deletion review open on it. Here is the location. The thing is, we can cover Antonella in the AI6 article. "Most notable scandal in Idol history". I doubt that. She wasn't disqualified. I'd say that Corey Clark (twice. When he was DQd and the Abdul affair thing) and Frenchie Davis were much more significant. And knowing Idol, within 3-4 weeks, we'll be saying Antonella who? Trust me. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet more recent media coverage of her, in NZ too! [1] Mathmo ^Talk 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And within 6 months, this will be up for deletion because she's not notable enough. I can guarantee it. 15 minutes of fame to a T. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going to get deleted, per Woohookitty. Anontella hasn't done anything herself. You can't have an article about someone who is only notable because fans and people think she's popular. AI takes normal people and makes them seem more important than they are, in attempts that people will like their contestants, and it works. And anybody who's endorsed by votefortheworst.com will be in public scrutiny -- it's nothing special. Elle Bee 11:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It meets all the relevant standards. There's no reasonable argument for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not right now necessarily, no. But there will be in a few months. I mean heck, Chris Sligh's article is up for deletion already and he's a finalist. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't something that disappears. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. Nadia Turner's page was just deleted because she was no longer notable. Her article was on this site for nearly 2 years. And she was considered notable for that long. I'd argue that all of the finalists are notable until it's a year later and they've done nothing. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is notable at any particular time will always remain notable for our purposes, no matter how obscure they become in the future. As an encyclopedia, we don't cover current events and then delete the stuff after people stop caring; instead, it becomes a piece of history. The only valid grounds for deleting Nadia's article would be if we decided she was not notable at the moment of her greatest fame. Everyking 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But it was deleted. :) And there was another one but I can't find it at the moment. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Still there, actually. Someone recreated it a little while ago. And frankly, if articles are getting deleted like this, it probably means they aren't getting enough attention, because ordinarily these articles are kept and there's a precedent for having articles for all finalists. Everyking 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw, thanks for helping out in patrolling this page. I suspect it's going to be a challenge for awhile. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

203.28.246.152 13:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)I tried to edit the DOB listed in the article, it is incorrectly written as June 1986 in NJ. Antonella was born on Nov. 26, 1986 in Santa Monica, CA. I'm sure, I didn't get it from the Internet, she's one of my closest friends. So I changed it and then it changed back. How can I make sure it stays?

Provide a source for it. However, I don't see a source for the June date either, so it should also be removed, unless a source can be provided. Everyking (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I got rid of the "rumored to be dating" crap. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. Arguman 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Where did the info go regarding her upcoming album?

It was removed because no source was given. And I still can't find one for it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone here keeps listing her as signed to Epic Records, but there's no mention of her among the artists listed at epicrecords.com. --CliffC 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section violates WP:BLP

For one, having sections called "Controversy" in BLPs is deprecated. "Controversy" is a word with inherent negative connotations, and is wholly undescriptive besides. Moreover, there is no evidence presented in any sources that there is any significant public interest or debate about what happened to her vs. some other contestant in a random reality show, nor is there any evidence presented that anyone thinks it's "controversial" that she wasn't dismissed while someone else was. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the absence of measurable career success, it appears nonetheless that the controversy is the only reason she is notable.

"The Judge waived a speedy trial"

>>"The trial has yet to be scheduled, through the judge waived a speedy trial due to the case's "complexity".
I'm not a lawyer, but can someone who knows the system rephrase this sentence or tell us if it doesn't need to be rephrased? In my mind, either Antonella Barba voluntarily waived her right to a speedy trial; or the judge recommended it and she conceded. But as far as I know, the government cannot waive your rights. Thoughts?--Mrcolj (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Mrcolj: The second option seems to be the most likely to me. I was going by what the source/citation said. I could remove that part completely if necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion

Based on her history of frequent arrests and mental illness, it does appear that her career is over. It might be fascinating for her fans to keep amending the article with her most recent drug arrests but that means this page is dedicated to a known mentally ill drug dealer who would not be notable except that she was one of millions of people on American Idol. 2604:2D80:A48F:300:E196:5751:B3A5:F8AD (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This type of discussion is best held as part of a WP:AFD. Barba has in my opinion received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:Notability requirements, but if anyone thinks that this article should be deleted, then the best course of action would be to nominate it for an WP:AFD. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)