Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dollshot


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Dollshot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

— Artaria195 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Sources include WNYC (the edited website of a major public radio station) that includes a segment of NPR's All Things Considered with a feature on the band, a blog with 11+ years of reviews and relevance to avant-garde jazz in NY, a review by the renowned longtime Village Voice and The Atlantic jazz critic (and recipient of the Pew Fellowship for the Arts). The New Music Box article cited was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The source ESOPUS is an independent publication. These are all major, reliable, independent and non self-published sources that show the notoriety of the band. Additionally, the list of notable venues played shows activity in and around NYC and CA. Artaria195 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find sources that would bring them over the WP:GNG guideline. It's all a bunch of blurbs or primary sources. SportingFlyer  talk  05:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SportingFlyer Additional sources have been added to the article showing notability in prominent music journals, magazines and newspapers. No sources are "blurbs". All are full-length articles, reviews and features. The sources in this article easily meet the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC guidelines. The feature on WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's All Things Considered was broadcast nationally and establishes more notability than many other similar pages on wikipedia. The only potential primary source is ESOPUS, but it is fully independent and there are more than enough other sources that are clearly secondary. Artaria195 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * First, you're only allowed to vote once.
 * Thank you, noted, I've made the change. Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * Second, looking at WP:NMUSIC, the only prong they could possibly satisfy is #1. I can't find any good sources in my own search. Of the ones listed, three are offline, which is fine, but I can't review them. None of the other ones are good enough. The weekly music roundup and ESOPUS are trivial, they get name-dropped in the Napster top 10 (in which they are 11th), and the Notes from Underground was literally written by the band. There's not enough out there to allow me to give the benefit of the doubt to the three offline articles which all apparently talk about their first album. SportingFlyer  talk  23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See my response below Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * The criteria for #1 WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. The three offline sources are all reliable and significant. The NYC Jazz Record and The Big Takeover both have wikipedia pages with more info if you'd like to review further. The WNYC Weekly Roundup is not trivial; it is a feature, published and broadcast by Soundcheck, a preeminent national media outlet. The Jazz Critics' Poll (now published on Napster) is a highly respected honor in the music industry. The band is included in the list of a Grammy-nominated music critic who organizes the poll, Francis Davis. In both of these sources, the band is featured alongside other independently notable artists. "Notes from Underground" is written by the band, but was commissioned, edited and published by a highly reliable third party. The fact that the band was commissioned to write an article about their music in NewMusicBox further supports notability. Additionally, Dollshot has two albums on Underwolf Records and so would also satisfy #5 of WP:NMUSIC, as Underwolf is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" (Hampton Fancher, Marco Cappelli, Mauro Pagani, Anthony Coleman, David Tronzo, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, etc.). These facts together exceed the guidelines for notability. Artaria195 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * I disagree on all fronts - there is not enough here to show notability - and I'm also concerned about the SPA nature of your account. SportingFlyer  talk  04:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep.Thank you for this discussion (I initially posted the article). Respectfully, I disagree with SportingFlyer and Drewmutt. The article lists reliable and non-trivial sources, and asserting that they are all a bunch of blurbs or primarily sources is inaccurate—there is a distinction between reviews or features from respected music journalists on edited platforms with wide reach and blurbs written by publicists. WNYC, Liquid Culture, and Francis Davis (who, despite writing for Napster at the time, commands a formidable reputation in the world of NYC jazz criticism as longtime jazz critic for The Village Voice and The Atlantic) are clear examples of the former.


 * New Music Box is the top online publication in the new classical / experimental music world. The New Music Box article was indeed written by the band. However, it is not promotional material—it's primarily about the microtonal composer Ivan Wyschnegradksy and secondarily about the band's incorporating his methods into their process. It was commissioned, edited, and published by a highly respected website devoted to arts criticism and journalism with a very wide readership in new music.


 * Artists writing about process and influence is not the same as self-generated PR material. Pieces like this are subject to editorial review and would not be published if they did not contribute significantly to the field. The fact that Dollshot was asked to contribute a piece in such a prominent new music space provides evidence to their notability.


 * True, ESOPUS is not a very significant source. I included it to verify a claim in the article, but if the community feels that it distracts from the overall claims to notability, then by all means the article would be better without it. I would have no problem with a community consensus to delete the source.


 * Regarding online versus offline sources: WP:OFFLINE states clearly, in boldface type, that there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources can be verified; citing that an article uses offline sources is simply not an adequate reason for deletion.


 * In summary, these are significant, independent, reliable sources from third parties—not blurbs or primary sources in the usual sense. They are not from the mainstream press, but the band is not from the mainstream music scene. They are, however, quite notable sources in the experimental music culture to which Dollshot contributes. Mae2030 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

— Mae2030 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment You've been here less than a month, and the only thing you've been doing is spam spam and spam Wikipedia with your subject. Additionally, your removal of the deletion discussion template is an indicator that, at best, you may not have enough experience with Wikipedia and its notability guidelines. Combining that with 's handful of edits, conveniently about the same subject all but proves you two are related in some fashion. I don't see much point in rebutting each of your claims of notability, as they are all quite misled. I suspect your edits are driven by other means than neutrally contributing to Wikipedia. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  16:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , your original motion to delete cited non-reliable sources, and I have carefully addressed that concern in good faith, explaining how the sources—which are neutral, independent, professionally edited, and disinterested—are indeed reliable, verified, independent sources. Again, they are not mainstream sources, but they are quite important in the field of experimental music.


 * Your response has been to repeat your assertion with no further evidence or reasoning. As a deflection against having to back up your original position, you assert that all of my claims are misled, and you call my motives and neutrality into question. This feels more like a bullying tactic against a newcomer rather than a substantive discussion.


 * It is true that this is my first article, and that my previous edits—which I used to learn how to use Wikipedia—have been on the Wyschnegradsky page. My area of expertise is microtonal music, which is the point of connection between Wyschnegradsky and Dollshot. This is hardly disqualifying.


 * Please substantiate your original reasoning for moving to delete—non-reliable sources—and please address why my good faith rebuttal falls short of proving reliability. If my claims to notability are misled, please explain why for each claim. If the article is not neutral, please provide citations to prove so. Simply asserting your point of view should not constitute a valid argument for deletion. Mae2030 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's first completely exclude the NewMusicBox article. It's not only written by the band, but it's not actually about the band, and in no article on this site would this be a source independent of the subject. Next, the WNYC soundcheck is six sentences long - it's not a terrible source, but it's not significant coverage. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be a self-published promotional newsletter for a music store, and the only non-print materials only show they released an album in 2001. The Napster article is also not significant: it consists of one run-on sentence about the band (the other sentence says the top 10 is actually 11) in which it calls the band obscure. It's already been noted the ESOPUS isn't a significant source. Keep in mind a band article must pass WP:SUBNOT, articles based primarily on what the artists say about themselves. Even assuming a couple sources may be significant, this article does not have enough quality sources available to demonstrate notability, and I say this having looked for alternative sources. In terms of the "notable label" argument, the label does not have an article on Wikipedia, and their catalogue on their website yields no notable bands. SportingFlyer  talk  22:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point we have all agreed that at least some sources are significant. Of the offline sources, NYC Jazz Record and Red Hook Star Revue both have articles about the band. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter is a highly respected newspaper within the avant-garde jazz community and features a substantial write-up about the band. Sources like the NewMusicBox article are not meant to be the sole source of notability, but support an overall case for it. Again, one cannot ignore the fact that the band would not have been commissioned for this article had they not demonstrated notability within the field of new music. Each of these sources in the experimental and new music world are "non-trivial, reliable and independent". The fact that Dollshot was featured on Soundcheck is an example of an experimental band crossing over into mainstream music coverage, which again bolsters the case for notability. The prominence of this and the NPR feature clearly outweighs the word count (no other band received more words, this is simply the format of this style feature). At the time of the Jazz Critic's poll, the band was more obscure. As to your point about being #11, I'm not sure why that makes any difference, as Mr. Davis consciously included it on the Top Ten list ahead of a separate "runners up" category. Taken in whole, these sources show coverage from a wide array of major publications in the jazz, experimental, new music and popular music fields. To your point about the label, Underwolf has released work by Hampton Fancher (screenwriter of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049, actor, director and subject of a highly regarded recent documentary), Mauro Pagani, David Tronzo and Anthony Coleman, all of whom are notable by wikipedia standards and have dedicated wikipedia pages. And they recently published a book by Ivan Wyschnegradsky (who also has a dedicated page) that is available in University libraries across the country. Artaria195 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability". Artaria195 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Red Hook Star Revue is a concert announcement. The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be distributed via e-mail and typically for the purpose of selling records.  I cannot find the NYC Jazz Record online. Here's the Underwolf catalogue.  it appears the artists in the band are on at least seven of the eight records listed. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  06:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about the main sources first. If the standard for notability is, per SportingFlyer, whether a source has an article on Wikipedia, we can start with NewMusicBox, John Schaffer's review on WNYC, Francis Davis, and ESOPUS magazine.


 * Regarding NewMusicBox, I respectfully, but strongly, disagree about excluding this source, for the reasons I have outlined above. It is not band-generated self-promotion, but a curated guest article about a subject of interest to a passionate, specialized audience. It is not all that different from an extended interview response: the band is answering, at length, a prompt provided by an editor, who has decided that publishing their words in full would be of great interest to his/her readership.


 * The stature of NewMusicBox demonstrates notability of the band, and the subject matter of the article places Dollshot in a unique strain of avant-garde music that reaches back to the cult figure of Wyschnegradsky. It provides crucial context for the band within a highly diverse experimental musical landscape.


 * Moving on to WNYC, the six sentences expand upon an audio feature that was broadcast widely on terrestrial radio, online radio, and podcasts. WNYC's weekly listenership is 1.1 million. John Schaefer is a celebrated new music critic. All of this is significant, notable, verifiable, and independent.


 * The Francis Davis article was published on Napster and written in a certain idiom; it includes 11 bands in a Top 10 list to draw attention to the arbitrariness of list-making—we can debate the stylistic merits of the source elsewhere. Davis is a highly respected, award-winning authority in this corner of the musical world; to be featured by him is a marker of significance and artistic achievement.


 * Inclusion in ESOPUS demonstrates exactly the kind of coverage and attention from third-party, independent, verifiable, neutral sources that Wikipedia seeks. I said that it wasn't a significant source for another reason: it simply verifies a fact in the article—that Dollshot was included in ESOPUS—rather than providing editorial spin. It provides no significant commentary for this article, but it does provide proof of significance, in that Dollshot was chosen by this source which meets the standard of notability outlined by SportingFlyer.


 * At this point arguing about ESOPUS would be more an argument about improving the article, rather than about deletion.


 * So we have four main sources from third-party, verifiable critics/editors/platforms that all meet the standards of notability. Plenty of Wikipedia pages have fewer sources than that.


 * We can nitpick about the other sources (such as Downtown Music Gallery, NYC Jazz Record, Red Hook Star Revue) if we want. This is a specialized area of music. Among specialists, these are important sources and their imprimatur is known. This is not band-generated PR. Record store newsletters and neighborhood alternative papers can wield enormous influence in the avant-garde world. The general public may not have heard of them, they might not have online archives that are easily Googleable—that's totally fine, but not a reason to discount them out of hand. Mae2030 (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You completely misrepresent what I said and what the standard of notability is, which has nothing to do with whether a subject already has an article on Wikipedia: the standard is WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I simply noted this as a showing their record label is also not notable. As I've outlined above, the sources are not good enough: NewMusicBox isn't independent of the subject, Esopus doesn't speak to notability at all as they just got their track on a CD included with the magazine, and the Francis Davis article literally included one sentence about the band. The WNYC blurb is a premiere of a track from their new album. Again, I can't find other decent sources that would cause me to argue for a keep, so please stop attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the process and let others vote on whether it's notable or not. SportingFlyer  talk  16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is bludgeoning here, and nobody is misrepresenting your points. You began with a blanket statement about the sources which was just not accurate ("all just blurbs and primary sources"), and I have made a patient, good faith effort to provide evidence to the contrary. Mae2030 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

— Nilknarf711 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Artaria195 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. After seeing that Dollshot released two new singles on Spotify, Swan Gone and She, I did a Google search to find their next show and came across this page. I'm new to edits on Wikipedia but felt inclined to make an account and comment, so please forgive me if I don't follow protocol exactly. As a huge fan of avant-garde music, I have seen Dollshot perform a number of times at reputable venues in NYC. Looking through the [WP:NMUSIC] guidelines and the sources cited on this page, especially through my lens of experience with this world of music, it is clear to me that the band is notable. The comments to the contrary in this discussion appear to come from an unfamiliarity with the press in avant-garde and outsider music scenes. I strongly encourage you to support the online presence of this band and other alternative art mediums; it would be a shame to see Wikipedia devolve to favor only mainstream music and media. Nilknarf711 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. SportingFlyer's analysis of the sources indicates that they do not sufficiently support the band's claim to notability. I am also concerned about the trio of apparent SPAs at this AfD - it seems unlikely at best that so many unconnected new editors would flock to this AfD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The coverage in Soundcheck is a step toward WP:MUSIC notability, but that's the only RS that gives any kind of depth-of-coverage that I can see. Close, but not quite. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious—how about the NewMusicBox article? It shows the subject curated by a highly visible website that is independent, with no COI or vested interest in promoting the band. (True, of course, it is penned by the band, but it is not a press release or any other kind of self-promotion outlined in WP:IS; the context of NewMusicBox is neutral, and the editors would have commissioned the article because of the band's reputation in the field.) In the small world of new music / avant-garde music, this is a very big deal, akin to a guest editorship or an extended interview. Mae2030 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've stated above, the article is not about the band, nor is an article written by any band member for any article independent of the topic of the band. It's not a reliable source for determining notability. SportingFlyer  talk  18:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you're repeating your assertions without addressing the argument. Imagine if Rolling Stone asked Frank Zappa to write an essay about Stravinsky's music and its influence on the Mothers of Invention. Such an article would clearly show Zappa's notability; Rolling Stone wouldn't give its pages over to just anybody. Scale this situation down to the world of new music / contemporary avant-garde music, and you've got the NewMusicBox/Dollshot/Wyschnegradsky source. Guest writing or editorship at a prominent publication is a clear marker of notability in the field. Mae2030 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, our primary notability guideline is WP:GNG, which requires sources demonstrating notability to be independent of the subject. The NewMusicBox article is not. SportingFlyer  talk  18:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --  Dane talk  04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's some overlooked evidence for notability: WP:NMUSIC states in #6 that notability is achieved if an ensemble contains two or more independently notable musicians. Dollshot exceeds this standard with three of its members. Noah K has achieved notability by meeting #5 through two releases on the highly influential HatHut label, both of which were widely reviewed. (He also has a wikipedia page in German.) Drummer Mike Pride is clearly notable by WP:MUSIC standards. Cellist Kevin McFarland is a founding member of the JACK Quartet, generally acknowledged as the premier string quartet in contemporary avant-garde and new classical music. Mae2030 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - current and additional Googled sourcing fails WP:GNG. The new album isn't even mentioned on Amazon, whereas almost every album I've ever looked up is there, at least as a stub. Dollshot's first album is there, with only one review, FWIW. Noah K's German article is almost completely unsourced, and the German Wikipedia's standards are notably lower than ours. Also, notability is not inherited - so a founder from a notable band can't go to a new band and automatically claim notability. The NewMusicUSA source is more about Wyschnegradsky. Finally, I know there's a guideline that says WP:OTHERSTUFF, which means you can't use other articles' existence to defend unrelated articles, but from a sourcing perspective, I like to see many or at least the majority of sources on Wikipedia themselves.  Few of these sources are. The New York City Jazz Record has a stub article, so with one source it may not even survive AfD. The Big Takeover has an article, but it's also poorly sourced, as is Esopus (magazine). There needs to be more mainstream coverage for this to be a keep. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you TimTempleton for looking in to this more. I respectfully disagree with your points though. First off, all the singles from Dollshot's new album "Lalande" are in fact available on Amazon. Second, Amazon is a store not a source. Anyone can sell music through Amazon, that cannot be a criteria for notability. Noah Kaplan (who more recently began using the stage name Noah K) is a notable musician by WP:NMUSIC. He has been covered many times in all of the mainstream jazz publications (Downbeat, JazzTimes, All About Jazz etc.), has been featured in articles in major French and Italian and Greek music publications and has two albums on HatHut Records which is a major independent jazz label, distributed by Naxos. In regard to Dollshot, the band has been covered in mainstream media by mainstream music critics: WNYC's Soundcheck and NPR's "All Things Considered" are just that. So is the Napster Jazz critics poll, where Dollshot was featured by a very notable critic (Please see WP:AADD specifically sections 4.2 and 4.11, where it states: "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability"). But mainstream criticism cannot be the only source of notability, as the band is not a mainstream band and functions in a more niche community of experimental music. Is Wikipedia unwilling to look beyond the mainstream media now? The point is that Dollshot has been covered by mainstream and independent press so should satisfy WP:NMUSIC #1. On top of that, the band satisfies WP:NMUSIC #6, as Noah K(aplan), Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are all notable musicians in the band. Can someone kindly respond to these points before deleting this article? I have made numerous good faith efforts to prove the variety and merit of these sources and have addressed three points in the WP:NMUSIC guidelines (#1, #5, and #6). Many of the arguments made against this article are of the variety "Dollshot is not notable because we say it's not", which does not adhere to the rigorous and democratic standards that Wikipedia represents.Artaria195 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * - I don't see the All Things Considered reference in the article, and don't see it on Google. My rule of thumb is that there should be at least 8-10 reliable sources, of which at least one is a profile in-depth enough to extract some biographical info. I just don't see that here. Ideally that would be a source that says when they started playing, and even what the name means. Absent that, we have no choice but to assume the omission is due to media disinterest. There are some exceptions to such stringent sourcing requirements, particularly with obscure religious figures from the middle ages, and plant hormones, but for music, especially modern music, obscurity that stems from being experimental doesn't help here. TimTempleton (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Here is the link to All Things Considered: https://www.newsounds.org/story/weekly-music-roundup-july-10/. Does Wikipedia specify somewhere that there need to be 8-10 sources? If so, I imagine that would place a large number of existing articles in AfD discussion. But more importantly, Dollshot does have 8 sources. Whether the "Notes From Underground Article" passes muster as a top source is not important here. It opens with an editorial note by a very prominent music writer (who edits the entire NewMusicBox publication) that provides background and biographical information about the band so would fulfill the requirement you stated above. In regard to your other points, to my knowledge, the band has never specified what the word "Dollshot" means; though the Lucid Culture article cited does make an attempt to explain it. The Red Hook Star Revue, NYC Jazz Record, Big Takeover and Downtown Music Gallery (all independent, reliable sources) have additional biographical information. Again, this is all in regard to the band satisfying WP:NMUSIC #1. Dollshot also satisfies #6.
 * The 8-10 is my personal criteria, based on years of editing. Nobody will make that a standard, because there are too many other variables, but it works for me, particularly with CORP and BLP articles. The host for the newsounds link seems to have appeared on All Things Considered, but I'm not reading that this is actually that show. In any case, it shouldn't have to come down to verifying if one single source is or isn't good enough. I'm outside the New York experimental music scene, and never heard of any of the publications, but have edited over a hundred non-experimental music articles. The sourcing doesn't look good enough to me - we'll have to see what others think. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Thank you again for taking the time to look into this. Dollshot was absolutely featured on All Things Considered, and by John Schaeffer, an very notable music critic. If you listen to audio link on the New Sounds page you will hear the segment on All Things Considered. The player is also on the Soundcheck page, which is cited in the article. I am not claiming that that is the sole source of notability, but that is another of many sources, and undeniably a high profile source that helps make the case. As is the feature on Soundcheck itself. Whether or not you've heard of the other sources cannot be a criteria for notability either. If one takes the time to verify, they will see that all of these sources are independent, reliable and important in the jazz and experimental music world. Can you respond to the argument for Dollshot satisfying WP:NMUSIC #6? They exceed the guideline, with 3 members of the band (the guideline only requires 2).
 * The article makes it seem like there are only two members of the band, neither of which are notable. I have no idea how #6 would possibly be satisfied. SportingFlyer  talk  00:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Noah Kaplan has two widely reviewed albums on HatHut Records (fulfilling WP:NMUSIC #5) and has been featured in national and international press. You state that he is not notable, but do not back this up with any evidence. Can you defend this position? Further, Mike Pride and Kevin McFarland are notable as well. If you accept that, then your argument is that the Dollshot article can be improved, not deleted. Both of these musicians are bandmembers, featured on Dollshot's new album. Artaria195 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * I do not accept your reasoning. The first sentence in the article: Dollshot is an American indie-pop band, made up of husband and wife duo Rosie K (vocalist) and Noah K (composer/saxophonist). That's two members. The other members are simply "featured on the album," as you note. Furthermore, Noah Kaplan has received press, but you continually overstate his notability. Many of the sources I've seen that come up first are blogs and primary sources "Kaplan performed here." SportingFlyer  talk  01:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - The article has been edited to better reflect the make-up of the band. Your generalization of sources for Noah Kaplan as "blogs and primary sources" is patently incorrect. First of all, by Wikipedia standards a google search is not enough to disprove notability (Please see WP:AADD section 4.2 where it specifically states that this argument should be avoided). Furthermore, Noah Kaplan meets the notability requirement of WP:NMUSIC #5, unless you want to try to argue that HatHut records is not a notable independent label. Please research this before attempting to argue this point. And lastly, a more thorough investigation of Noah Kaplan will turn up many more sources, but this is all beyond the scope of the current discussion. To reiterate yet again, Dollshot meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6, all of which make it notable by Wikipedia's own standards. No one has yet disproved this, and I and others have made countless good faith attempts to impart unbiased knowledge of these sources and this field according to the guidelines stated in Wikipedia. Please don't just level more accusations without evidence to support them. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) is supposed to be about facts, not the opinions of a certain group of self-appointed editors, who state in their arguments that they are not familiar with the field. Artaria195 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195
 * I've put in a good amount of research for this AfD and stand by the case I've made. SportingFlyer  talk  04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that you've made a case against the sources, or Dollshot passing WP:NMUSIC #6,, I am willing to accept that your mind will not be changed. Can someone with knowledge in the field of experimental music please review this AfD and properly research the sources, the band and the Wikipedia guidelines before the article on Dollshot is deleted? I believe this discussion got off on the wrong foot-- the initial comment is: "References currently point to non-reliable sources, falling quite short of WP:NMUSIC. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more" which has been disproved with supporting evidence over and over throughout the whole discussion. Most of the "delete" votes simply claim to support the initial comments without even addressing or refuting the arguments, analysis and evidence to the contrary. Many of these votes would not pass WP:AADD, because they rely only on google searches or basically say "delete" without providing any evidence. So far, there does not seem to be a good faith attempt to keep this article, or even to understand the reasons and support contributors to it have provided. If researched at the level that an encyclopedia article demands, the sources will pass WP:GNG, as will the article's claim about the notability (by Wikipedia's own standards) of the band. If an unbiased editor/administrator who is familiar with this field and who has not yet weighed in could please review this article in regard to WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC #1 and #6 before it is deleted, that would be much appreciated. Artaria195 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Artaria195


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.