Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteberg
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
— User:Dlohcierekim, 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BAND (Wikipedia:Notability)