Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The River Company

Was tagged as a speedy, but doesn't seem to me to meet any of the criteria, so I brought the article here to gauge consensus. Looks to me like it might meet criteria 1.5 and 1.7 of WP:MUSIC. --Slowking Man 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it clearly meets at least criteria 1.5 with links to two prominent Mississippi papers listed on the page and probably 1.7 due to their activity and success in their community WP:MUSIC. --User:anonymous 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I attended school with the members of the band and live in Ocean Springs, where they are all from. They are very active in the community. I served with the members on the board to create an annual music festival in Ocean Springs. Proof of the festival's existence can be found here: http://festival.oceanspringsmusic.com/. The band's official website is: http://therivercompany.oceanspringsmusic.com/. There's no reason whatsoever for this article to be deleted as they are clearly very notable, if only in Mississippi. Futhermore, The River Company has a large fan base located across the entire Gulf Coast and everything in the article is fact. Michael.m.winters 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete an article of red links with no indication of getting near to meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it's only an article with so many red links because everyone deletes any sort of new information(as clearly indicated by this attempt)... And it clearly does meet at the very least criteria 1.5 of WP:MUSIC, the section which very clearly states, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band... etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (5) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)" with links to references in several reputable newspapers. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, not supressing it. Garyleeweinrib 3:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do not believe two articles constitutes multiple or several in this case. Nuttah68 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Explain, How many do you feel constitutes 'multiple?' Also, there are articles that are not available on the internet any longer without paying for an archival subscription. Therefore providing links to these in the external links section would not be appropriate. Garyleeweinrib 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It varies, but for a band offering nothing else that gets even close to meeting WP:MUSIC, a fair few and definitely more than two. Nuttah68 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, now there are four. Garyleeweinrib 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment :: The "too many red-links" argument is weak, since this can be solved by removing some of the links, until the linked subjects themselves become notable. Just because an article links to non-notable things doesn't mean it is itself non-notable. If you disagree, let me have a respectable article in sandbox-mode for 1 day: I'll fill it wth red-links, and you can AfD the result, and see what people think. -- Simon Cursitor 08:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (who klnows nothing about the band)
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.