Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Richard

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Richard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Can't see any credible claim to notabitilty here. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source something better. There are potentially plausible notability claims here, but they aren't adequately supported by reliable sourcing — but notability doesn't hinge on what the article says, it hinges on how well the article can or can't reference the things it says to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the things it says. But given how heavily Quebec-based his career was, it's highly likely that if he has adequate reliable source coverage to pass GNG, most of it would be in French newspapers that I don't have adequate access to in order to be the fixer. But we also don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist somewhere than we've actually been able to find — we can only consider sources that are actually in evidence, so somebody who wanted to claim that he got over GNG on French-language coverage would actually have to find and show his French-language coverage, and we can't just keep the article on a presumption that he might have more in French than we've found in English. So, again, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, and I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can improve the article before this discussion even closes, but this as currently written and sourced isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and even though it is still a work in progress, I believe it will help you reconsider. Saucoin (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added four references from newspaper articles that discuss Richard's qualifications: "U of O series to end with song recital" (Ottawa Journal, April 1972), "Richard ensemble highest in integrity" (The Leader-Post, February 1978), "Club to present The Magic Flute" (The Leader-Post, January 1974), and "Spanish guitarist, baritone to wrap up festival season" (The Chilliwack Progress, April 1977). Toughpigs (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Saucoin (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced either way, but just want to point out that the obvious WP:ATD would be a slight merge and redirect to Denise Massé. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the text that followed the link to his wife (pianist Denise Massé). I agree it did not jive well (i.e. conflation). Saucoin (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think recentism might be an issue here. References above are good enough. Here's another one from 1955. Also I see that User:Saucoin has added several sources to the article since the AFD started. Excellent work, but they should comment here instead of removing the AFD notice. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and it is still a work in progress. Saucoin (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your interest. Can you please explain to me why you relisted the article. Note that current editor comments were addressed and the article has been substantially revamped with cited information and sources Saucoin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please consider withdrawing your nomination for withdrawal. The article has now significantly improved, including citations and sources, to allay your concerns. Saucoin (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saucoin: It's okay, you just need to be patient. People will see that the article has improved. It doesn't help to keep posting messages on this page, and it might hurt your cause. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found during the course of the AfD, I want to highlight that the one linked by Nfitz strongly suggests that additional coverage exists - it mentions "national and international acclaim", which I might not trust on its own, but also a debut at Carnegie Hall in NY that was well received by critics, with quotations. Unless I've missed something above, we haven't found any of the critical response to that performance yet, but it clearly exists somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2024 (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.