Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Jazz

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Jazz[edit]

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

After seven years article still has no meaningful reverences to non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Failing the appearance of this, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arved (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:JUSTAVOTE KDS4444^Talk 21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually your best bet on your crusade. There are indeed not many independent non-russian sources. They are mentioned in "The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes" as an example for script-mixing, which suggests that they are notable. Their guitar manufactorer lists them as a reference. IMHO There are far-less notable bands on Wikipedia. Arved (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not totally certain what the "crusade" comment there means. If it means that I recently nominated several articles on Russia rock bands for deletion, then I don't dispute this. If you think I did so carelessly or in error, I welcome more of an explanation. I am not convinced, however, that the defense put forth above qualifies this particular band as notable— a listing in a handbook (... of "Englishes", though I do not know what that means...) does not sound like it constitutes significant coverage (see WP:TRIVIAL); likewise, being listed as a reference by a guitar manufacturer doesn't sound like it's going to qualify either. We don't need "independent non-russian sources", we need significant coverage in independent, reliable, verifiable sources in any language in order to retain this piece as a standalone article. That other less-notable bands have articles has no bearing here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes?). KDS4444^Talk 23:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:12, 24 February 2016 (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.