Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW (Dave) Drouillard

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 now adequately referenced. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DW (Dave) Drouillard[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the five online citations provided in the article, four made no mention of the article subject, and the other was only a passing mention. I could not find any significant coverage for this musician; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I authored the Article DW (Dave) Drouillard and felt that it met the criteria for an acceptible, although incomplete, article. Please advise why the sources used were not considered notable as they were independent and discussed the accomplishments of the artist. Also, I'm getting the feeling that Wikipedia editors do not consider a printed article of any merit if it is not available online - example, newspapers that have not moved to web archival. Therefore, I would appreciate help in understanding what an "acceptible source" is by Wikipedia definition, perhaps a reference to a page in Wikipedia? Per I Dream of Horses' suggestion that Drouillard is not shown to be notable, I will contact Dave about the awards he has won for his songwriting and add them to the page as soon as possible. I welcome suggestions to properly expand the article. Darkloon (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated with new content: Awards & Recognition and Critical Citations sections. The sources are all available via hard-copy or microfiche. Darkloon (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability asserted and sources provided that meet WP:RS, allowing this article to remain as a very acceptable WP:STUB and grow through regular editing over the due course of time. I accept in good faith that User:Gongshow did not find online sources, but "online" WP:RS and WP:V is not a mandate. Libraries and microfische are just fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Darkloon Power.corrupts (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't see the reason why this article was nominated for deletion. Maybe it needs to be improved, but the sources are enough to give notability and keep it in Wikipedia.Victor Silveira (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (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.