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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPAtite[edit]

ZAPPAtite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article shows no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with regard to "ZAPPAtite". Eddie Blick (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is of certain interest in a series of similar articles, as can be followed in the chronology timeline in the inforbox. Removing this article will cause interruption of that chronology. - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DVdm: You will need to develop a stronger argument to keep this article, preferably by either listing articles supporting that it has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources in this AfD or incorporating them into the article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Would something from jazztimes.com, music.mxdwn.com, liveforlivemusic.com be approprriate and sufficient to keep the article? There's about 12,800 Google hits on this album, but most are places where tracks can be bought online. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DVdm: The JazzTimes source seems strong; I am not certain about reliability of the other two sources however, but they also seem applicable to this article. I would suggest doing further research to possibly find other sources as well to add more to your argument to keep the article as I do not believe that three sources alone could satisfy an ironclad keep (but that is just my opinion). Just as a word of advice, I would not use the amount of Google hits or the fact that you can buy something online as markers of notability as those are in fact not clear indicators of notability so be careful when relying on that for your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Well, I didn't create the article and I'm not married to it, so to speak, and I'm not inclined to put time and work in it. If someone feels like it, they can use the link(s) to add content. My only argument, which is more like a remark actually, is that deletion would interrupt the chronological albums chain (in which I did invest some time and effort :-)). Similar remarks regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat Light. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DVdm: I understand. I would have to respectfully comment that I do not believe the chronological albums chain is not a strong argument for keeping this particular article or Meat Light. If a reader really wants to access the next album or the one released prior to this one, then they can reference the infobox or reference the artist's discography page. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also confirm that there's no policy precedent for keeping articles for the benefit of an infobox chronology, each item must be notable independently. KaisaL (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with all of this, but I personally would just keep it nevertheless per, well, no harm and no big deal . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG not met. If the deletion of this article breaks a template or infobox, well, it takes a few seconds to fix that. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.