Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piet Jeegers

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. John254 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Jeegers[edit]

questionable notability; references supporting his notability are hard find (447 Yhits). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get approximately 910 Ghits, and am inclined to think he'd be more suitable for the Dutch Wiki, but the article says that he's invented various mouthpieces for bite differences, that would be somewhat notable, so would think he passes WP:N based on that. ArcAngel (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to add to the lack of consensus I'm going to sit on the fence too, but I'd just like to point out that there's no such concept as "more suitable for the Dutch Wiki". The language of a Wikipedia project is simply a matter of the language in which the articles are written - it has has nothing to do do with where the article subjects come from or what language sources are written in. This subject's notability for the purposes of the English language Wikipedia is exactly the same as it would be if he was from an anglophone country and everything written about him was in English. His suitability for Dutch Wikipedia can be decided by consensus there, where policies are developed independently from English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems quite notable, quite a few ghits. Developing a new type of Clarinet reeds seems quite notable. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Probably meets the notability guidelines. I ended up doing a Dutch only Google search, then letting it translate the links. Not a ton of hits, but in addition to the above I found two or three musicians listing the fact that they studied under him as part of their bio. The aggregate of all of this makes me lean towards notability. Xymmax (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an extensive discography, which suggests that he meets the criteria for musicians#5. However, referencing needs improving imo and I have tagged it so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources may be hearder to find, but that does not make non-English-speaking people non-notable. Article asserts notability based on his ideas on mouthpiece designs and extensive discography. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (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.