Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorch


 * 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. A hard one to call. There seems to be roughly equal support on both sides, with the main concern being the lack of reliable sources. Nevertheless, others have noted that this band is different to most cases of non-notable bands without reliable sources. Some sources have been provided, and there is no consensus on their ability to establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Zorch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:BAND-level notability, no cites except to primary and non-RS, fails google search test. To clarify, this is not the same band as the two-man band from Austin that comes up first in most searches. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. Pishcal  — ♣ 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Changing !vote to just a regular Delete. While they may have been important in the early history of synthesizers in rock and English rock music, there are still no reliable sources to prove these assertions, and the band doesn't appear to be notable.  Pishcal  — ♣ 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Obscure, inactive for years, but these were the originators of UK electronic prog rock (and it doesn't get much proggier than Zorch). There's even a recent US electronic duo (from Boston?) who have adopted the name "Zorch".  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that they were in some way significant to the genre in those days, which is why I brought it to discuss with older users instead of PRODing or somesuch, but is the main problem with them as an encyclopedic subject matter, which is really unfortunate-- they seem like a really interesting chapter of electronic music history. Couldn't find anything that was a reliable published source anywhere on the UK guys, and I can't find anything that indicates the Texan band (if it's these guys you're talking about here, they're from Austin) took on the name in honor of the originals or that they knew about them at all. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the bunch. I never could tell Boston from Austin, unless it was winter. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - the article does not provide any reliable sources nor provide any evidence of WP:BAND notability. --Rpclod (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC) , that's what really hurts about putting this one up for AfD... this could be such a neat band article to have, but the article is in such bad shape right now, and the sources we'd need to keep it alive are probably going to be very difficult to find... I might post an inquiry in WikiProject Music to see if someone might have something, unless you want to do it. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 08:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh man, this is kind of a tough one. This band's history is amazing, just reading it - only three years around, but they played all the big free festivals in UK at the time, and right when electronic music was really only defined by Pink Floyd. Unfortunately, looks like the band didn't get much play in the press. too weird? :[ I found enough sources to confirm to me it isn't a fake band, , , but nothing really nice and hefty to verify facts. This is very pre-internet though - I'm really hoping that someone has access to old periodicals, and might be able to find us a good book source or something. If nothing turns up at all, then I'll very reluctantly probably change my vote to delete. Earflaps (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * May have found something - anyone know that periodical better than I do? Earflaps (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Comment: I would be more than happy to help out here, as I am a member of the British Library which has old copies of NME, Melody Maker, Sounds, etc... the big problem is I live and work abroad most of the time and am not likely to be back in London before the end of the year which will probably be too late to save this AfD. Anybody want to save a copy of this article to their sandbox and leave it dormant there for a few months until I get a chance to check the music mags of the period, in case the article does get deleted? Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than willing to incubate it in mine-- here you go! BlusterBlasterkablooie! 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. I'm not into prog rock at all, but as Earflaps has said, the history of the band is so interesting I want to find out more. They certainly exist – their website is at www.zorchmusic.com, and Gwyo has his own website at http://www.zorchmusic.com/hscarr/ with a nice mini-biography of the band straight from the horse's mouth (as it were), but that probably won't do as an RS. I can't promise anything, there may be nothing in the 1970s music press, but we'll leave this a few months and see what I can dig up. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Update:, that magazine is widely available in British newsagents, has been around for years, has credible writers, and will unquestionably qualify as an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 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.