Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cactus Jack (band)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cactus Jack (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have found several pages that can be used as references. However, I beleive that the fact the band was included by Petar Janjatovic into his EX YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006 speaks best about the band's notability. This band satisfies at least three notability criteria:


 * 1) The band has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable (EX YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006).
 * 2) The band has released two albums for a major record label (PGP-RTS), and three albums for a notable independent label (One Records).
 * 3) Their song "Koliko puta na dan" has been placed in rotation by severeal radio stations, whila all the bands albums have been placed in rotation by Radio Belgrade. ostalocutanje (talk)


 * delete. They've been around for over 12 years, have released 2 full-length alums, yet only remain known in their home country. There is no evidence that they have charted on any national music chart, or have a gold certified album. Petar Janjatovic does not have his own wiki article, therefore, his book cannot be reliable. Also, that seems to be the only book the band has been the subject. WP:MUSIC states they must be in multiple, reliable, non-trivial works. zzz (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The band is well known in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (I'm not sure, but I believe they also toured FYR Macedonia). Since the dissolution of Yugoslavia there have been no official charts in Serbia, therefore it's impossible for any artist to chart. The article about Janjatovic is the least problem, I could make an article about him, as well as about his book today. It's hard to make someone who never held the book in his hands believe it is one of the most important sources, if not the most important source, when it comes to Yugoslav rock bands and artists, but it is used as a source in most of the articles on former Yugoslav rock. I expanded the article, although I'm not sure if that can help in any way. Ostalocutanje (talk)
 * "Petar Janjatovic does not have his own wiki article, therefore, his book cannot be reliable." that's bullshit. and they don't need to be known outside their country to be notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The band Cactus Jack should have its article because of the following:

1. The band is notable with releasing a major record label releases and, since the case is PGP RTS, believe me it is not at all easy to achieve in Serbia, as this record label is extremely selective of the material they are to release.

2. They are very active in terms of touring, check out the tour dates on their website.

3. Janjatovic's book mentions the band, which is enough for the former Yugoslav scene. The reason why there is no article on wikipedia for Janjatovic or his book is the lack of the people interested in creating the articles on wikipedia, which leaves the whole Serbian rock scene to a couple of people, including myself, to work on.

4. I have seen articles for more unknown bands and less notable than Cactus Jack.

All in all, the article for the band might need some improvement, since it had shown a slight notion of the lack of notability, but the band IS notable, and should remain among other Serbian rock bands on wikipedia. Milosppf (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Article needs improving if it is to remain on Wikipedia but there is significant coverage to prove this band's notability.Omeggia (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (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.