Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Pistols


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Diamond Pistols

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, provided sources are mere mentions and credits. Online I was able to find some hype pieces in blogs, but nothing that was independent, reliable, and significant. Arguably meets WP:COMPOSER through songwriting credits, but given how far we are from GNG I'm not inclined to consider that enough. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Rosguill for bringing this to the community's attention, however, based on the wikipedia guidelines, I want to make the case for this article being kept live.


 * Overall, this article seems to be flagged based on lack of notability. To start, I'll note that one can immediately see in the Notability (music) page that Diamond Pistols may be considered notable due to having composer "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." There are reputable and reliable sources provided showing Diamond Pistols has composed not one but numerous notable compositions, all together acquiring millions of plays on streaming platforms, radio play, not to mention charting on industry standard and high profile charts like Billboard. For example, Diamond Pistols produced a song on Jackson Wang's album MIRRORS, which became the highest charting debut album ever from a Chinese artist . Based on this alone, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Diamond Pistols article should be deleted based on similarity with the Johnpacklambert ( talk ) article.


 * Secondly, while @Rosguill is correct that Diamond Pistols is lacking significant news coverage, I believe this is more a reflection of the music industry rather than a lack of notability. Music producers/composers are known to work behind the scenes, and thus they rarely receive news coverage mirroring the level of the artist who put out the song the producer composed. What I'm arguing is that Diamond Pistols' notability is reflected in the numerous composing credits shown on sources such as AllMusic and Ascap. Per the wikipedia guidelines on notability WP:GNG, I believe these sources adequately represent "significant coverage" of Diamond Pistols as they "address the topic [i.e., Diamond Pistols/Christian Dold] directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It's true these websites are not news, however these organizations are the music industry standard for crediting producers, are widely considered reliable, are completely independent from Diamond Pistols, and are comparable to IMDb for the film industry. Thus, I would not consider Diamond Pistols' inclusion on these websites to be mere trivial mentions, but rather represent the best possible avenue for producers receiving notability. I should note that these sources seem to be standard on other high-quality producer articles I've found on Wikipedia (see Andrew Goldstein (musician)).


 * Overall, I do believe Diamond Pistols has adequate notability to deserve a wikipedia article, and it seems unfair to exclude producers from Wikipedia solely on the basis of news coverage. Should news articles and books really be the only example of acceptable secondary sources? That rational seems a bit outdated in the digital age, and especially in the context of the music industry.


 * That said, I will acknowledge I am new to the community, and I would like to learn from you all on your interpretation of the situation. Cluehitch (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Cluehitch


 * , have you seen WP:NMUSIC? Are any of the criteria there satisfied?  Java Hurricane  12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * yes, I did check out the WP:NMusic. There does seem to be evidence pointing to notability given he has writing credits on several notable compositions. Please see further explanation in my above analysis (first paragraph). Cluehitch (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:BEFORE shows few blog posts only when searched using his professional name. Subject fails WP:GNG.-- KartikeyaS (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is not much news on him. Please see my explanation above on how notability for music producers isn't traditionally via news articles, but rather through crediting websites as cited on the article. Essentially, just because a music producer has few articles, does not mean he or she is not notable in general. Let me know what you think based on that. Cluehitch (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and if I am not mistaken, the SNGs normally don't overrule the GNG.  Java Hurricane  16:32, 16 June 2020 (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.