Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jets to Zurich


 * 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. None of the post-relist arguments for retention have been rebutted. --MuZemike 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jets to Zurich

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable band. "charts" claimed by article are from a city radio station that publishes its chart info on blogspot Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The band have had articles, reviews and general coverage in many independent papers and magazines. And the chart whether official is still established and on a national station within the country it is based. Imperious2780 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is significant coverage, then add it, and the article will likely survive. Regarding the chart (which would grant inherent notability) - it is my opinion that the chart of one radio station does not qualify for the WP:BAND criteria in question. However, others may weigh in on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends very much on the chart, I would think. Which makes it that much more critical to find sources that show which chart, when it charted and how well it charted. If it's just a local chart, then not so much. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular, from the (blogspot hosted) chart website - "The QBS Alternative Rock Top 40 is based on listeners votes" which would make it highly unreliable and unscientific. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon searching the internet, further links have been added to the article from reputable magazines. Digging for more info currently to flesh the article out.
 * Imperious2780 15:38, 10 December 2011


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep. Coverage is borderline-sufficient to establish notability, and as these sources confirm, the band had a number one single in Qatar. Not a great chart, and not a massive achievement given the way the chart is compiled, but we have enough for a reasonably well-sourced short article.--Michig (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this article meets general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per User:Michig. I have reformatted the refs and added a few more. Pol430  talk to me 18:07, 1 January 2012 (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.