Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Danel

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Danel[edit]

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

I am a little unfamiliar with our standards for musicians, however I note that the only sources on the page are broken links, directory sources, and random pages that are not reliable sources. This source is the only one that looks ok.

Either he is not notable, or he is notable but the current article is almost exclusively promotion and original research. In either case a deletion seems appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the standards aren't difficult to grasp. Sell a bunch of records, or release a couple of records on a big label, get some attention from the press, and there you are. It's hard to believe that this promopiece, full of discographies and whatnot, is so poorly sourced, and that there are so few reliable sources available for this guy (yours is valid but doesn't have much to say). The French article is just as bad (it's even tagged as promotional, first time I've seen that in a French article), and the Dutch is probably worse (I checked to see if they had some references to offer). So I'm hesitant to say delete right now; I'm curious to see if this AfD brings up something new. And perhaps someone will be excited enough to seriously prune this resume/article. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ! There's been some talk on the French article. I added some sources here and there on it at the time. But some guys seemed to be quite agressive about the article or the artist himself. It seemed to me it was quite abusive sometimes. The promotionnal tag is quite recent, and appeared without any major change if I remember. Internet is quite full of references about the guy (records, gold discs, videos, duets with guitar greats etc.). There are videos of tv advertising, gold discs ceremonies at sony records, press articles, etc. In my opinion, the article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. I suggest I can do that and you see what you think about it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Changes are done, and new sources have been added. It is certainly three times shorter now, which is a good thing. I think it is now aaceptable :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleaning and inclusion of material from the French article, but a number one album in his nation's charts and gold status meets WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Görlitz. May also benefit from being tagged with {{expand language}}. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:25, 3 February 2014 (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.