Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dry 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   keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dry The River

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non-notable subject per WP:BAND  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete : I agree with the nom, personally, as the most reliable source I could find in a quick search of Google News (searching for "Dry the River" band) was this. But at the same time, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can find better sourcing. - Jorgath (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Revising my earlier opinion, Keep. Those additional references are sufficient for me, although I'm still a little worried about running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Let's say that the appear to be notable enough right now, but at a future date they might be revisited if they end up failing WP:PERSISTENCE. 71.178.129.76 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above was me, I failed to realize my computer had logged me out. - Jorgath (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Persistence is not really an issue in this case due to the number and quality of sources. With weak sources, yes, but these guys are getting coverage from the most mainstream publications that exist, not just industry or music related websites.  Same with Crystalball.  Only way to have stronger sources is being on the front page of the New York Times.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Easy keep - I had already looked at this one after it was created, and did the move because I found them notable. BBC interview here (except for those of us in the USA...) plus The Guardian  and The Telegraph, with the last two being quite comprehensive.  I can find more (I literally spent two minutes is all, two pages on google), but I think these should be enough to demonstrate notability for the purpose of the AFD.  The article just needs work, the creator is a newb, and I complained about the "short" part of the article on the talk page already, knowing it would end up here unnecessarily.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and worked those refs into the article. I can understand the assumption that a new band that has yet to release wouldn't pass criteria here, but in this case, they do.  Dennis Brown (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added more sources to the article . Significant coverage exists for this group in multiple independent reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow  Talk 02:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable via coverage received.--Michig (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources included in the article demonstrate that WP:BAND is now met. --sparkl!sm hey! 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. Plenty of high profile sources. There's no "crystal ball" at all. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Crystal ball is not a generic descriptor for an article. It actually has meaning. In the other article you are fighting for, it is used accurately, because the film is a future film. This band is current. your arguments will carry more weight if you actually try and understand the policies you are arguing. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree that they are notable. Alex9788 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Keep" Dry the River deserve a place on Wikipedia... this is their place. Why would you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.123 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2012 (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.