Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Gallardo

In this article, we are going to delve into the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Gallardo. From its origins to its current evolution, through its multiple facets and applications in different contexts, we will immerse ourselves in a detailed journey that will allow us to fully understand its importance and impact on society. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Gallardo is a topic that has aroused the interest of many over time, and in this article we will explore its most relevant aspects, discover its possible future implications and analyze its relevance in today's world. It doesn't matter if you are an expert in the subject or if you are just beginning to delve into it, this article will provide you with valuable information and invite you to delve deeper into the exciting universe of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Gallardo.
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. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Daniel J. Gallardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that the music exists, which is not an automatic free pass over NMUSIC in and of itself, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG at all: there's his own self-published website, the self-published Instagram profile of one of his collaborators, two YouTube videos, three glancing namechecks of Gallardo's existence in sources whose primary subject is the collaborator rather than Gallardo himself, and the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization, which means eight of the nine sources are doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to establish notability. And while the one remaining source is a piece of media coverage, it's a "local musician plays on the beach" blurb published by his local television station, which is not substantive enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only piece of media coverage he has. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 3 August 2021 (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.
      • The page was still under development and I will appreciate a step-by-step guide for a non-develeper mode person - how to make a page about an artist at their early stage.

At this point is seems like you have to be a grammy award winner for the rules to be fullfiled.***