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 delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JackEL[edit]

JackEL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. lacks coverage in reliable sources XFhumu^Talk 20:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I wrote the article. I realy tried to give as much and as seriouse refs as posible. I think every important thing is prooft. But If someone have a other opinion on it, please let me know so I can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new ref which I found with the source list frome abouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep and clean this thing up. Right now, it feels more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. There are two reliable sources that I can see and I may have blown one away in an edit conflict while Jakabl was working on the article. The ELs section feels more like footnotes that should be moved to inline citations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I base it on these five sources: http://bmbr.nyc/5-quick-things-with-jackel/ http://www.thissongslaps.com/2016/04/jackel-takes-fortythr33s-bay-breeze/ http://orangeticmusic.com/interview-rising-star-jackel/ http://www.onlythebeat.com/interviews/2014/10/30/jackel-comer-watch-interview http://music-overload.com/artist-to-watch-up-and-coming-electronic-djproducer-jackel/ . Agree that there are a lot of primary and other sources that do not meet RS, and one or two of these are questionable. That's why I offer a weak keep rather than a certain one. Googling for the term is futile since it's a play on word on "jackal" and even when you tell Google you mean the "jackel", it looks for the former. That by itself may be a sign. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz thank you very much for your help and your criticism. I saw what you did and made also a few changes like yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable individual, probably promotion. Coverage is sparse to begin with and RS coverage appears to be nonexistent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete These Article is no promotion. I just can't give more other informations becaus there are no references. As I said, I'm working on it and take every criticism serios. At the moment I'm serching for more references to give also other informations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs)

• Delete - There certainly are a lot of sources, which gives the appearance of notability, but it seems there may have been a bit of puffing up. The sources cited include a Linkedin account, the usual Soundcloud stuff, and more than one source that don't even mention this person. Other sources, like, this one, are used a lot, though it looks like a site for self-promotion (it publishes using Wordpress and uses a gmail account). Other sources, like this one, are primary sources (an interview), in a fairly non-notable publication. Overall, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Magnolia677: But did you do WP:BEFORE? It appears that WP:GNG has been met. Correct me if I'm wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I searched using Google and Bing. The sources are thinner than an Amish phone book. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion for lacking independent reliable sources and not written from a neutral point of view and it looks like it was deleted. Now, it has been recreated with the promotional content removed however, most of the page's references don't detail the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite the in-depth research by Walter Görlitz, I still don't feel the sources are reliable enough to establish notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I didn't do any research. I just looked at the references in the article. Some of which you removed (and I just restored). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete I took a few thinks from the page and found for the informations new references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2017 (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.