Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Zito

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Zito

[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)

Stub fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO beyond a doubt. No notability, no significant coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The PDF source used in the article is about him, rest are mentions. I find plenty of name drops in google, mostly as lists of bands/musicians associated with a certain event. Scattered coverage in GBooks, in the context of the larger jazz scene. Not quite enough for notability at this point that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Modern Drummer has a 2+-page article devoted to him, as well as entry in the Jazz Encyclopedia mentioned by Oaktree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously meets WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources:

An entry in Leonard Feather's Encyclopedia of Jazz probably the preeminent encyclopaedia of jazz biography (on it's own this should be enough).
Biography by Eugene Chadbourne at AllMusic.
A three page profile in Modern Drummer.
A recent hour long interview for the Fillius Jazz Archive at Hamilton College.
A section on Zito in a Woody Herman biography.

This is alongside hundreds of other mentions and other print sources that are not easily searchable. I doubt a serious WP:BEFORE was undertaken. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vladimir, although I need to note that these sources they found aren't all that easy to find, except for the interview, which doesn't qualify for significant independent coverage. I'm not sure what a serious BEFORE is when given the note other print sources that are not easily searchable. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vladimir.copic. Notable enough to justify an article, though it needs expanding. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:00, 7 July 2022 (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.