Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Right Brothers


 * 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. RS added to article. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Right Brothers

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

Delete I don't see any references. This looks like a vanity page to me. Unless you can find some sources I say delete. George Pelltier (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that this group meets the requirements of WP:BAND, as it appears to be a strictly MySpace/YouTube outfit. Reliable sources that treat the group in detail are necessary. Deor (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve: I can see references for much of what's claimed here online, and will work to improve it. MuffledThud (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - yeah i see sources but none really indicate notability, it's a shame too since george w bush deserves better than hes gotten, he was really a good president - unfortunately this just appears to be a vanity page and other than a mocking reference on keith olbermann has little play :( Aurush kazeminitalk 17:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely WP:BAND, possibly fails WP:NOTE Raven.sorrow (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Covered in major media and sourced out the wazoo. Back up the deletion train. - Draeco (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added several more references, including several international press articles. It might be argued that the band is only notable for one song, but in that case the article should be moved, not deleted. MuffledThud (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * rename/merge to "Bush was right" or whatever the song was that made all the news. WP:ONEEVENT seems very on-point.  But the song and/or event (however you look at it) is clearly notable.  If no merger/rename happens, then keep as notability is clear, but ONEEVENT tells us how to cover it.  Hobit (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - please explain: coverage in USA Today, Washington Post, Boston Globe, The Guardian, Gazeta Wyborcza, 20 Minuten, Clarín, B.T. and MSNBC is insufficient? What would be sufficient? MuffledThud (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand, it is covered in major media. May not be overtly famous yet, but maybe someday=PSmallman12q (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A band does not have to have Top 40 hits to be included.  Notable for coverage on national news/cable news as well as albums produced, including other songs getting some play on radio. EagleFan (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per above, extensive media coverage. As for what the nominator said: "I don't see any references. This looks like a vanity page to me. Unless you can find some sources I say delete." WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:PRESERVE policy: "Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples). Nominators first edit to this page was to add an AfD, in violation of these rules. Ikip (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator Another editor accomplished what the nominator should have, and what a simple google search shows. Since this AfD nomination, the article has had 14 sources added by User:MuffledThud Ikip (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2009 (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.