Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ D (2nd nomination)
: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.
=[[:DJ D]]=
:{{la|DJ D}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|DJ D}})
Notability issue. Two sources are dead links (including 'DJ D' s own official website). The main source is a Dutch platform for party/events/sessions (fwiw: no Italian page on that DJ from Bergamo). {{Grey|(Second nomination? or was it another DJ D that was deleted in Feb 2009?)}}- darthbunk pakt dunft 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. For clarity's sake, I've looked at the deleted version and it pertained to a female DJ D from Australia rather than a male DJ D from Italy. So this isn't a recreation of the same article, but a different topic that merely happens to have the same name. That said, this article is parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence shown of the type of reliable source coverage in media that it takes to clear Wikipedia's notability standards — and I can find no improved evidence of reliable source coverage on a Google search either. Searching on "DJ D" is virtually pointless (typical result: the dictionary definition of "DJ" as a verb whose past tense is sometimes spelled as "DJ'd" instead of "DJed"), and even his real name just brings more primary sources and hits for unrelated people. So while the article makes claims (mostly touring) that would clear WP:NMUSIC if they were sourced properly, nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of proper sourcing to support one. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Bearcat's analysis is entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.