Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zapoppin'


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Zapoppin'

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:Notability (music). Band does not have two albums from a major label and no evidence of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources". Recently added citations remain trivial passing mentions of gigs. It is possible that there is non-trivial coverage that has not been cited here, but a good faith search has not turned any up.  SabreBD  (talk)  14:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to reinforce the non-trivial coverage of Zapoppin' by 247 Magazine, I have amended the link to point to a digital version of the magazine (rather than a web-post hosting this version). I have also included a link to a BBC playlist including Zapoppin's track 'Hoisted' as further evidence of notability. Mymyyada (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Mymyyada
 * Comment It looks like it comes down to whether the published works meet the criteria of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". Now it can be seen, I think the 247 entry probably meets the criteria of non-trivial, which means one more is needed and I think most of these including the BBC are largely just listings. I am not sure about the Clash citation, which doesn't look much more than an entry, but to would be useful to have opinions from other editors on that one, or, dare I say it, another unambiguously non-trivial source.-- SabreBD  (talk)  19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. In an effort to remedy these issues I have expanded the text detailing the response to Zapoppin's album Antiquarian Party Ballads For Dames with a reference to the - arguably unambiguous - review and inclusion as a 'Favourite of 2010' by Jam Records. Additionally, I have included a reference to Zapoppin's radio play as part of Resonance FM's 'Pick of 2010' show. I'm confused as to the difficulty accepting the Clash citation as it is a national magazine offline with a significant online presence, also. This reviewer dedicates 100 words going into some depth describing the band, their set and the lyrical themes of their songs. Though, am happy to hear of further issues and to hear the opinion of another editor should the more recent changes not be adequate. Mymyyada (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Mymyyada


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. With the 247 review plus the Swiss radio interview and also the Jam Records favourite pick (note, this is not their current label) the band has sufficiently been covered, even internationally, to be notable. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that the record company site can be taken as third party, even if they are no longer with them and unfortunately I cannot get the Swiss interview to play, but I am willing to take De728631's word for it on that one. It is still near the margins, but I think there is now enough here to change my nomination to keep and I have stuck it through accordingly. Good luck on improving the article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Jam is in fact not a record label at all, but rather is an independent shop (online and offline), blog, cafe and venue. I have amended the page to account for this confusion as the Jam website more often refers to itself simply as 'Jam' rather than 'Jam Records'. Thanks for input from both editors. Mymyyada (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (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.