Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day By The River


 * 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. Wizardman 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Day By The River

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Albums do not appear to be released on a major label. Only the second album, Fly, is listed on allmusic, and the label for this release, DBR, could indicate a self-published album. References are iffy. Only the ZDnet link could undoubtedly pass WP:RS. Personal sites and the subject's own sites certainly don't, and online 'zines are questionable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-released albums, insufficient reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --T-rex 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? DarkAudit (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is notable --T-rex 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof or it didn't happen If you don't intend to prove your claim, I suggest you go away and troll someone else. Your reputation precedes you. DarkAudit (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What didn't happen? I think the fact that it is notable, is really the only reason anything is ever kept. --T-rex 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, then Take your games elsewhere. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Accuse me of trolling? Yes, that proves the articles non-notability --T-rex 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. External links,  include coverage by independent secondary sources, so the article meets WP:N.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I took those into account before I posted the AfD. Two sources does not rise to the level of "significant" coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought they did, but then "significant" is a problematic word as it can be interpreted at opposite extremes ("extraordinary" versus "measurably above the noise level") and yet other interpretations are possible. I interpret it as "substantive", meaning that the source substatially (not incidentally) covers the subject.  Could you please explain what you understand by "level of significant coverage"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When you go point by point through the guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC, they fail to meet every guideline but one. (The production team does not truly meet "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable".) We're left with "multiple non-trivial published works". Of which we have but two. That only just meets the definition of "multiple". When all the other points are missed, two articles isn't substantial enough to make up for it. DarkAudit (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (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.