Deletion of Whiteberg

Comment: despite JoshuaMosher's efforts, subject remains a band that has not been signed by a major label and otherwise does not meet . When people propose changing the rules so that their article of interest may be included, they have basically conceded that the article does not meet inclusion criteria. However, the article itself says the albums were "self-released". Wikiepdia policies are based on consensus rather than impassioned pleas and cries of "stagnation."  Working hard for years they may have been. That effort does not equate to notability. One of the apologists above concedes they are "obscure," and calls the cause of the lack of sources their lengthy career. We now have access electronically to records going back in some cases for centuries. There is nothing at Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. 1983 is not so far back in time that we should not be able to find any trace of this band were it notable. I have the 1983 edition of ''The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll'' on my bookself. It is available on Google Books.  In searching the 1983, 1995 and 2001 editions of  ''The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll,'' there is no mention of the subject. Creativity, innovation and talent are often in the eye of the beholder, and it is true that notability is not always equated with those traits. As Encyclopedists, we do not judge on those terms; all we have is notability. That too is often in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion I am not seeing it at this time with this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND)

Comment: Unless reliable sources can be found, this doesn't pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: Notability in Wikipedia is defined by the consensus policy at .  Specific guidelines for bands and musicisans is found at .  In short, the guidelines suggest that the band must be the subject of "''multiple, non-trivial published works''", have had a single of album on any country's national charts, produced a gold record, won a major award or major music competition, has produced music that has been placed in rotation by a major radio network, etc.  If we can find sources that confirm this, the band meets notability standards of Wikipedia and should be kept.  Notability must be verified by such sources.  To quote from WP:MUSIC:  "''In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BAND)

Comment: There are absolutely no sources to back up any of the claims, other than the band's website. As such, this fails . Most of the claims to any kind of notability stem from some vague association to notable artists who are cliamed to be supporters. Without third-party sources, none this is |verifiable. If we removed all the unsourced claims, we wouldn't be left with much. Wikipedia cannot be used to establish notability. Unfortunately, some artists will always fly under the radar until someone picks up their cause. If in the future an unrelated person writes about them in a significant way, they could achieve some sort of cult notability. But right now we can only go by what's published
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:V)