Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Twentieth Century Zoo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

2nd incarnation of non notable band's AFD. Article is a recreation and still does not justify notability of article. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Band was an early influence in garage punk which I did refer to. Tell all the articles depending on early influence as their notability like The Chocolate Watchband, The Human Expression, H.P. Lovecraft (rock group), The Third Bardo, Mystic Tide... (shall I continue, the list goes on) that being the earliest influence is not notable than they should be deleted too. Also, the Allmusic article about them was written by Richie Unterberger, one of the most respected and prominent music critics, so he too was aware enough of their notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015

More - First psychedelic rock band of Phoenix (addresses issue of WP: BAND), signed to major label, reoccurring sources verifying notability, re-released material (addresses WP:GNG) This goes along with my statements above. Like I said, if this band isn't notable neither is the countless list of bands I only chipped the iceberg off of. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Even More! : Also, the user's statement that this is a "recreation" is also false. The issue with the last page was it did not offer references and directly copied from the ones it did use. It would have stayed if someone rewrote it, as mentioned in the past discussions. So, as a result, I have reliable references and the writing is not copied from any text. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2015


 * The actual article nominated for deletion was apparently a whole different article than the current one (but on the same band). This one is only a few months old, whereas that one was nominated for deletion in 2008.  The old article may not have been as well-sourced.  So, it wouldn't be best to keep the current article and build it up into being the best article possible?  Garage rock aficionados, by their very nature (and by the very nature of the genre they follow), have a keen interest in bands from a long time ago that are usually practically unknown to most people.  They want to have resources and biographies to learn about such bands, and an encyclopedia can chronicle the original purveyors of what is essentially an ethnographic folk music.   We shouldn't apply the same standard of notability of a unique smaller band from fifty years ago who has a specialist/interest collector/fan base to more a more recent Holiday Inn act playing mainstream Karaoke fare that is unlikely to ever have any collectable interest with music lovers.  There is a difference.


 * It is amazing that people are still discussing this band fifty years later. And, keep in mind  that this band came from a pre-internet, pre-cable TV, pre-MTV, pre-digital era, when it was not as easy to self-promote--long after the moths ate many of the pictures and newspaper articles that may now be forever lost--and, by the way,  there was a lot more competition from other bands back then.  Wiki needs to establish a set of guidelines for dealing with certain kinds of historical acts of specialist interest.  While I shouldn't pretend to speak for anyone else, I think I remember User: Ghmyrtle, a Master III editor, on his talk page coming to the defense of User: TheGracefulSlick on this very same issue, and I would be glad to enlist his and several other top editors' opinions on this matter as well.  Let me emphasize that there is no consensus to delete this article: I am firmly against doing so (and I am confident that other editors will feel the same way). Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As per the rationale stated above by CrazyAces489 I agree with him. The article subject does not pass  WP:GNG or WP:BAND.     Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Garagepunk66. When you consider all the bands that have formed over the years, any of them that are still in the public eye decades later should be considered notable.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This level of material available just on AllMusic for a band that existed for so short a time so long ago merits inclusion in the encyclopedia as part of music history. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - example of how GNG can be abused. Pre-internet band is still generating discussion, indicative that the band is notable and likely received sufficient media coverage at the time.  In a quick search, I found the following reference, which added to the AllMusic entry should make the subject pass GNG.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 02:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, great find on the reference. If someone could translate, I would love to include it when the article stays. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2015
 * Keep. The additional source that has come to light means that these guys just about scrape the bar at WP:BAND and pass the WP:GNG. — sparklism hey! 04:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - in addition to Allmusic, I, like 78.26, found the above source. In addition, searching "'Twentieth century zoo' band" in Google Books turns up some other mentions in reliable source, some foreign language. This indicates that there probably are more print source out there that discuss the band. Archives of these sources might be available in library databases.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (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.