Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Jazz Quartet (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jazz Quartet[edit]

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

The band fails the notability guidelines of WP:BAND, and I have been unable to find reliable sources that discuss the band in depth, other than just mentioning their works. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is being made less than 3 days after the no-consensus closure of the previous one using precisely the same rationale as before. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the non-English-language references identified by other editors in the previous discussion, and referenced in the article. (I'd been about to add a Keep view in that AfD on the basis of Vejvančický's contribution when the AfD was closed.) AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are books mentioning their work in-depth. It has enough relevance and this AfD is unfair because its opening immediately after previous one. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 27 June, 2011 [17:07]

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.