Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zook (band)

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. — CharlotteWebb 11:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zook (band)

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly reliable on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 08:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Three notable members; Jukka Jylli and Sami Kuoppamäki (both Kingston Wall), Rocka Merilahti (Michael Monroe, Remu Aaltonen). What could possibly be more reliable source than Helsingin Sanomat? [1]. Also covered on MTV3 [2]. Radio play on Radio Helsinki. [3] Their album charted in Finnish Top-40 at 27. (03/2006) and 30. (04/2006) [4] [5]. Prolog 10:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Passes WP:Music for the following:

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."

This criteria is satisfied per the reasons given by Prolog. -bobby 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel the "contains at least one member" clause is a somewhat unfortunate one. If Jukka Jylli one day plays his guitar to his cat a few minutes and calls it The Feline Experience it immediately passes the notability guidelines. And the cat can then transmit the notability to others. I don't think there is a "fame is virally transmitted to anything that a barely notable person touches" clause anywhere else on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - Your cat case would of course require extra attention (although, I find the idea of a cat musician notable in its own right). In the more general case (such as for Zook) we are talking about a widely recognized band (ie. not a few guys sitting by themselves messing around with a guitar) composed of three individuals who used to play in notable bands. Thus, I feel the criterion I cite is well applied in this instance. -bobby 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Meow! You are now notable :-) Re "not a few guys messing with a guitar": if the new band itself is notable due to what it does then it should be notable. Not by association with someone who was once in a band that had a member whose earlier band made two records on a "major" (heh) record label (the way "infectious notability" now works) (and I don't mean Zook/Kingston Wall is like that; I mean in general). If Zook itself makes records, makes headlines, tours widely, then it would be notable. But if it plays a few gigs in a pub and then disbands, I don't think it would be notable regardless of who is in it. But "infectious notability" does make such a band notable, as well as any of its otherwise non-notable members. There are bands and musicians like that in Wikipedia. Which I think is not good for quality. </rambling_in_the_wrong_place>. Weregerbil 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. They meet WP:MUSIC by having an album chart in Finland. The notable members adds to their claim. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets at least two criteria's of WP:MUSIC as mentioned by the above users, and therefore passes for me. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:12, 8 November 2006 (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.