Talk:jazz band

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

jazz band

SOP, isn't it? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The entry depends on defn 2. If the contrib who made that entry would care to supply some evidence, then it stays. Otherwise SoP and out. -- ALGRIF talk 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently defn 2 refers to what Wikipedia terms a "juvenile jazz band". If attestable, we should have a definition for juvenile jazz band or perhaps juvenile jazz, rather than a specialized sense of jazz band. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WT:COALMINE. "Jazzband" is attestable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In capitals?

Given that our past experience of attestability claims shows that the evidence is often ambiguous or wrong and given the desirability of actually having entries and attestation in entries, we cannot take a claim of attestation as attestation, even of entries that are not in themselves worth the effort. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "in capitals?", "coalmine" or "jazzband"? I capitalised "jazzband" because it's a beginning of a sentence, no, it's lower case (need to filter out proper names, Spanish and other foreign borrowings, where it's spelled without space. I do believe the entry is worth the effort. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

re: Caps: Sorry. I should have hovered over the link. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And I should have made it clearer it was lower case. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it does pass COALMINE clearly; jazzband occurs in plenty of respectable-looking texts. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)