Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zipera (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zipera

Zipera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No indication of notability. Nothing has been added to this substub since the no-consensus AfD in 2005. Jfire (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as clear-cut WP:CSD#A7. No reason to even have an AfD imo. User:Dorftrottel 08:14, January 25, 2008

Articles that have survived an AfD are not eligible for speedy deletion. Jfire (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. My intention was to get people interested in keeping this one-sentence stub to do some serious looking for sources. How the other AfD ever went down as a keep is simply beyond me. User:Dorftrottel 09:52, January 25, 2008

• Keep. AfD shouldn't really be used as a way to get people to edit an article, but anyway I've copied over the discography from the Polish Wikipedia article which indicates that they have have had two albums released on Prosto Records, which satisfies WP:BAND as the label has been established for 9 years with a significant roster of performers. Also Google news reveals that they have been reported on regularly by Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's highest circulation non-tabloid newspaper. Unfortunately the Gazeta Wyborcza web site seems to be unavailable as I'm writing this, but the Google summary of the second item in that search list, entitled "Hip hop ze stolicy (Hip hop from the capital)" starts with the words "Gwiazdy krajowej sceny hiphopowej - zespoły Zipera, Flexxip i Grammatik... (Stars of the national hip hop scene - the groups Zipera, Flexxip and Grammatik..." (my translations). If Gazeta Wyborcza reports on them regularly and calls them stars, then I think they also meet the general notability guideline of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Phil Bridger. And, as Phil says, an AfD should not be used to encourage people to edit an article! Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these "not what AfDs are for" comments replies to Dorftrottel's comments or my nomination? It seems to me that the nomination was perfectly valid given that there were no substantial edits since the previous no consensus AfD and little to no English language sources. Not everyone speaks Polish, you know... Jfire (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I intended my comment as a reply to Dorftrottel - I certainly didn't mean to imply any bad faith on your part. The article in the state that it was nominated was certainly a reasonable candidate for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would never nominate an article for deletion in order to motivate editing, but agreeing with deletion as an incentive for others to come up with half-way reliable sources that I couldn't find is ok imo. User:Dorftrottel 09:20, January 29, 2008

Well, I think your tactic worked - you spurred me into action, anyway! I only meant that remark as a piece of harmless banter, so if it offended you in any way I am happy to apologise for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I sound offended? User:Dorftrottel 09:53, January 29, 2008

• Keep - Looks to meet notability. Maybe we can get some of the Polish article translated to better demonstrate it. But remember, neither lack of English sources nor lack of activity is a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (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.