Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard d'Ascoli


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (yarn)  @ 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Bernard d'Ascoli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced BLP. Doubtful notability as the nearly 8k Google hits boil down to only 214 unique hits. beside that, the article has been removed three times already for promotion and copyvio The Banner talk 12:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment ... and nearly 20 million Google hits for Barack Obama boil down to only 269 "unique hits", as you are interpreting the term. Past a certain point, long before it has identified all duplicates, Google generally stops looking unless you refine your search. Having said that, sources (beyond his web page and Debrett's entry) definitely are needed - with a third place in the Leeds International Piano Competition (even if back in 1981), I have little doubt that d'Ascoli is notable (and Obama too, for different reasons) but sifting out substantial reliable reviews or other sources from passing mentions of future appearances does tend to be trickier for concert pianists than for Presidents of the United States, and I can only hope that someone else has more time to do this than I do at the moment. PWilkinson (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I can find many articles announcing his performances, and some reviews following them. The article needs references, but with a fair amount of time commitment they can be added. So I say keep but leave a banner about references. Question, though: does there need to be a reference for each city that he has played in? That means digging into local papers, and I'm not sure how much it adds to the article. LaMona (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I should mention that I did add a few references, mainly to the competition he won and a review of a London performance. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The concert review adds, to my opinion, absolutely nothing. Okay, we have two sources now, but I can not say that these convince me of his notability. The Banner talk 00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Concert reviews will be the main resources for living classical musicians. The review "circuit" for musicians is like the review "circuit" for restaurants - it's the medium through which their work becomes known. Except for some humongous stars, like Pavarotti, you will not find non-review articles about them. In fact, there's little use writing about a musician who tours except when that musician arrives in your area and people have a chance to hear him. It is possible that you are trying to apply criteria from another topic area, but in this environment reviews are key. LaMona (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ample coverage of his career, passes GNG.  Examples:  Odd that this article didn't mention one of the most distinctive things about him: that he's been blind since the age of 3, and (according to this source) was "the first blind prizewinner of a major international piano competition". --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BARE - it passes GNG by having reliable sources, but in no way is this "ample". Bearian (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.