Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamming Arabs, The


 * 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 Delete Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jamming Arabs, The

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed with MuffledThud, here are my reasons why this article should not be deleted:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles Shortcuts: WP:BAND WP:MUSICBIO A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Okay, I admit that Alopecia Records wasn't the biggest record label, but they did produce most of England's surf/garage music during their time. The fact that the Jamming Arabs were on this record label therefore would indicate that they were an important group in this genre.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. This is a tricky one. The Jamming Arabs were certainly the most prominent surf group in NE England, but it might also be true to say that they were one of the only surf groups!

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) Again, tricky. One of their songs (unreleased and so not subject to copyright) was used for Hartlepool Tourist Board but it's impossible to reference this as there was no money involved and so no deals exist.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The Jamming Arabs appeard on Radio Tees for a live session, DJ was Bob Fisher. The band also appeared in the local paper, The Evening Gazette on a two page spread as a local band that actualy had a record deal. Sadly I can find no record of this paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: if you can find support for Alopecia Records being a significant independent label, we may have something here. The rest doesn't sound promising. Coverage in local media doesn't really count towards notability. Getting used by a local tourist board doesn't count for much either, and is probably unverifiable if what you say is true. The "prominent representative" criterion applies for a notable style or a city's scene, not a style within a city's scene. It would only apply here if they were prominent among surf groups overall (and it doesn't sound like they're as well known as Dick Dale or The Shadows), or among NE England bands of all styles. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's maybe down to personal opinion, but Alopecia Records were very important in the surf/garage scene. A quick search on Amazon shows the you can still purchase cds and records from the label. If you look at many of the more popular garage bands they have released material through Alopecia. For example, the following surf bands all appear on wikipedia: The Phantom Surfers, The Apemen, The Trashwomen. In addition, Sir Bald Diddley, the founder of Alopecia Records, can also be found if searched on Wikipedia.

One of their songs appeared BBC Film Network:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/films/p005nb7f

although the film was created by the bass player ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the local tourist board is unverifiable, however, it was played on local television on a semi-regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikirussy (talk • contribs) 11:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete since it hasn't been established that this group meets WP:BAND. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep since I would say that the band meets criteria 5 (depending on whether or not you conside Alopecia! Records to be a note-worthy independant label - which I do). --Tikirussy (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that require two or more albums though? As far as I can tell, this band only released one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I read it wrong - I thought it said two on a major label or one album on an indie label. Having said, they did release one cd, one ep and appeared on two compilation cds...still, I apologise for mis-reading the criteria :( --Russell (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Regretful delete: Regretful because Tikirussy's responses here are probably the most gracious by a new contributor whose article faces deletion that I've ever seen on WP. Delete because the band appears too niche to me to meet notability requirements: I do not think Alopecia Records are significant enough a label, since in its own right the label appears to fail notability criteria (Gbooks search; GNews search). The local press coverage, as Gwalla says, is also not enough to meet the criteria, and a single album on an indie label misses that element of the criteria. All the same, thankyou Tikirussy for being a mensch about this, and I hope you'll continue contributing to the project in other areas. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo those sentiments. Too often, new editors can be difficult to handle in deletion discussions but that certainly isn't true of Tikirussy. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too true. Thanks for being such a good sport about this Russell, and please call on me if I can be of any help with any future articles. MuffledThud (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for the advice along the way, I've certainly learnt a lot in this process (including the word mensch!) and everyone has been more than helpful. I'm obviously sad that the article is deleted but I understand the reasons behind it all. Cheers! --Russell (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd just like to chime in and also express my appreciation for Russell's pleasant attitude. Having an article you've put some work into wind up on AfD is never a good feeling, and too often AfD debates are plagued by frustration. You've been really great about this whole thing, Russell! &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:03, 15 January 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.