Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Lafon

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. Notability has been established during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Lafon

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I basically still question this article's notability and there's simply nothing else actually suggesting better. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. Simply perusing articles provided in the Google News link atop this page provides coverage in reliable sources about the subject, as the headline topic no less. There's plenty "suggesting better". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I was going to say delete, but checking out the Netherlands wiki and she seems to have quite a bit of info, I think her page just needs expanding. Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Some, but not all of these are short articles, but WP:BASIC states that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article just needs some work. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've started to expand this article and hope others can bear with me as there are too many sources for this articles subject to accomplish this effort in just a day. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi @JMHamo: and @SwisterTwister:(cc @Doug Weller:@Checkingfax:) Would you be so kind as to state your objections to this article and explain your own researh so that I won't duplicate your efforts. I may be missing something as everything I've found shows this articles subject to be very notable. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Picomtn: YouTube is not a Reliable Source and you can't use Wikipedia as a reference either, see WP:CIRCULAR.. I've removed them. JMHamo (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JMHamo: Thank you for letting me know about Youtube, and I've replaced that link with one from VTM that WP policies say I should have done in the first place, sorry about that. As for WP:NL not being reliable? That's a confusing issue for me, but not really critical for this issue as I just put it in as a sort of quick reference until I'm able to sort through the over 85 sources I've found to fill out this article. And again, can you please tell me your exact objections to this articles subject? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @JMHamo: I fail to see the logic of your removing the link I replaced the YouTube link with as that is exactly what Wikipedia:Videos as references says to do. Can you explain please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be sufficient coverage in Het Laatste Nieuws and Het Nieuwsblad. There wasn't when the article was nominated, but on the other hand a news search on her name turned up enough so I@m not clear why this was nominated. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 30 April 2016 (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.