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. J04n(talk page) 15:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hendersons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unexplained prod removal. The band does not appear to meet WP:BAND:

Could not find any WP:SIGCOV in conducting WP:BEFORE. Due to the commonality of the band name, variations were tried such as the band + (their album names) and band + (musician names).
Their assertion to notability, winning the Fort Worth Weekly Award is only supported by the Fort Worth Weekly. Due to the lack of independent coverage, it suggests this award is not notable.

If someone is able to find multiple and independent sources that accredit their award as notable, or that the band itself has generated enough coverage to meet WP:BAND, then I am inclined to delete. Mkdw ^talk 06:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I read the notability guidelines for musicians and thought that this band met the criteria. Otherwise I'd not have created the article. Here are multiple independent feature articles discussing the band. http://www.fwweekly.com/2011/03/09/the-hendersons-back-to-the-future/ http://www.fwweekly.com/2012/11/21/hello-again-to-the-hendersons/ http://www.fwweekly.com/2013/01/30/way-to-go-euphio/ I don't believe there to be subjective matial contained within the article. [[User:GlobaldawnGlobaldawn]][[User talk:globaldawn^talk]] 06:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globaldawn (talk • contribs)

Globaldawn, no need to apologize. You have done nothing wrong. In fact the opposite, you created and contributed to Wikipedia, which is a great thing. The XfD process is a part of Wikipedia. We have guidelines that show us what types of articles relating to bands should be kept, and which ones should be deleted. Based upon my interpretation, I had flagged the article with a prod template, which after five days, would have been reviewed to see if the article meet WP:BAND or not yet. Because you removed the prod template, I nominated for XfD which is some times the next step in making this a community discussion. For starters, you are more than welcome to put forth your arguments as to why the article should be kept, which you have. In regards to the two sources you provided, they are somewhat primary in that they also gave the band the award and are now connected to the band. To assert notability, both in that they received a notable award, or that the band has received coverage making them notable, you will need to provide multiple and independent sources. Don't get me wrong, the two you have are a good start, but not enough at present. I did a preliminary search myself but did not come up with anything conclusive aside from one run-of-the-mill coverage about a performance they had. Mkdw ^talk 06:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the listed references in the proper full format and done a bit of work on the article. I'm leaning in the direction of keep but I'd like to see article(s) from a second reliable source. - Dravecky (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Not on a major label, or notable indie label. No nominations for awards. No gold records. No press outside the Fort Worth area. Grande (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is only from the FW Weekly. There aren't a diversity of reliable sources covering this band. It seems like they've gotten some local fame, and are an up and coming band. No prejudice to recreation in the future with more success and coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.