Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Zoob (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. Tone 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zoob[edit]

[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)

Unsourced. Fails WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete this band in their first AfD about 9 months ago. That AfD ended up as "no consensus" because several voters vowed that sources must exist but the band was suppressed by the old Communist regime, their Polish Wikipedia article has more sources, and the like. I think those are valid concerns, but if those sources really do exist nobody ever put them into the article. If similar sentiments appear this time, I hope Admins will take a "put up or shut up" stance and delete the article if nobody truly delivers on the sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will also add that most of the keep votes were based on "has charted on the LP3 charts". But these were not official national charts, and editors who know something about them have said that they were based on user votes, not on sales or airplay. So this wouldn't be a valid "keep" reason. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added the sources Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artemis Andromeda: Discogs is not a reliable source. It is created by folk, not checked by any editorial team, so it is an SPS source. scope_creep^Talk

Reliable source for bands are covered by WP:MUSICRS. I don't see any these on the article being used in the article. The 3rd reference is an annoucment of a new track (193 words), the 1st is a short interview and 2nd is a notice of death. No reviews, no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is ok. I've checked the 6 references and they're typically band fare. There is one song on Youtube with 32million views. They seem to have some classic songs and the references seem to show longevity. Has anybody got any other thoughts? scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Topic seems notable, but there just doesn't seem to be too many sources available. The sources in the article do look fine to me, however. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my arguments at the first AfD and consensus at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:16:Mr. Zoob. I do agree that this is borderline, and desperately needs better sourcing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 29 October 2021 (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.