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. I've tagged for cleanup as suggested below. Proto::► 13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company[edit]

The River Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm concerned about the verifiability of this topic. After quickly searching on search engines for the band information, Wikipedia was the only source listed in top results. The article has no references except for some external links of which none, being written by third parties, specifically mention the band. Additionally the notability is highly controversial. Other than the external links (of no value to this debate) can the authors present any evidence this topic deserves an article? Chupper 05:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've bumped this up to get some type of response on the proposal. Chupper 14:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- any unverifiable information should be removed, of course, but there's plenty of sources linked from the article that provide verification of key facts. Notability criteria requires multiple non-trivial independent reliable published sources to have discussed the subject -- I count at least three in the external links section. JulesH 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough notability per WP:Music. RE:JulesH - three external links talking about the band doesn't signify notability. There is no number and I do not think the content of those external links justifies notability especially under WP:Music Anonymous user. 166.153.176.215 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I think that the external links do justify the notibility of the band. What sort of evidence other than external links do you want? Notability is hard to judge based on search-engine results. Try searching less generic terms than the band name itself such as the names of the band members. Regardless, WP:Music clearly defines that ONE(1) of the criteria be met, regardless of your personal opinion of how many must be met. And though some of the links have gone into internet archives, and should be removed, there are still several notable publications that feature articles solely based on the band and it's work. Garyleeweinrib 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Of course there is enough notability for this band listed under "External Links". I don't know what Wikipedia's notability rules are, but this article is nearly four months old. Why in the world would it be nominated for deletion after four months of no problem? Really, I find this ridiculous. Michael.m.winters 06:09, 5 February 2007 (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.