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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Daniels[edit]

Dan Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article was PRODed, material was added, and PROD removed. IMHO this DJ remains non-notable under wp notability standards, and unlike the editor who removed the PROD I do not believe that the DJ is notable by virtue of having recorded a song that we deem notable (to be clear, it was not his recorded version of the song that was the notable one). Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Entertainer who created a notable lasting work with its own WP article; coverage specifically about Daniels found in third-party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- it is not his recording that was a hit and that meets Wikipedia:Notability (music), but that of another singer. Singing the same song. Which was itself written by notable composers. While the song and the composers and the singer who made it famous happen to be notable, I don't see how his having been the first person to record the song by itself makes him notable under our notability standards. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level of commercial success (which is itself a subjective concept) does not alone demonstrate notability or a lack therefore. Daniels' career both as a recording artist and DJ has combined, IMO, achieved a sufficient level of third-party coverage for this to be a Keep. The 'Good Guys' alone arguably justify a stand-alone article as well, as is clear from a quick search: [1]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were suggesting that he is notable because he sang the song in question. And, actually, per our singer notability standard, one may be considered to be a notable singer if one has had a single on the US music chart. But that was not the case, best I can tell, with the version of the song that he recorded. That is the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure that I agree that his career as a DJ adds much, despite the additions to the article as to the fact that he is tall, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the song have gotten noticed and song by others if he hadn't done it first? How high on the billboard did it get when he song it? Dream Focus 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any answer would be pure conjecture. But the composers were the already famous Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. And it was the version recorded by Peggy Lee -- who was herself already famous -- that reached number 11 on the U.S. pop singles chart.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of independent, reliable sources. The subject is mostly notable as a DJ and that's fine - see category:Radio presenters for numerous other examples. Warden (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage for him being one of the good guys DJs is significant coverage. Dream Focus 23:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, I see a well written shiort bio on a guy with multiple non-trivial coverage in RS.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep clearly notable.Trongphu (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Per consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2012 (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.