Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Eyed Doll


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One-Eyed Doll

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails notability requirements of WP:BAND and WP:GNG. A Google search showed no secondary sources that note notability other than winning a minor award. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Inks.LWC (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It has won several awards which are not minor, albeit regional; Austin is quite the seed bed that way. Detailed citations shall follow; be patient for a short while. kencf0618 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: AFDs run five days, so if you are able to add appropriate citations to reliable third-party sources in the next few days the article won't be deleted. Keep in mind, though, that we can't keep articles based on the possibility that these citations will exist one day in the future when the band becomes notable. They have to be notable now. --NellieBly (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They're out there, I just have to track them down. kencf0618 (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that there are sufficient citations now to cross the notability threshold. kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per added sources. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite the avalanche of sources, if one actually inspects the sources, we have a lot of unreliable sources, and the ones that are reliable do not provide significant coverage about One-eyed Doll. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree that there are a lot of unreliable sources &mdash;of course we're going to have a lot of blogs given the nature of the subject, and then again the SXSW Austin Music Awards are no minor event.  One-Eyed Doll isn't a one-off, it's a significant up-and-coming punk band, so at this stage of their career path what would count as significant coverage?  A citation in Rolling Stone? kencf0618 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - You said it yourself -- "up and coming". When they arrive, then would be a good time for an article.  I don't see that as having happened yet. -- Whpq (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because in my estimation they are notable now.  Not to put too fine a point on it,  OED has crossed Wikipedia's threshold of notability, which is why I wrote the article in the first place, avalanche of music press citations and all.  kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - No worries. To a degree, the amount and type of coverage that's needed to establish notability is subjective and we'll never have all editors agree on everything. -- Whpq (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Just so.  Sometimes you throw a thick slab of meat onto Wikipedia knowing full well why and how it'll be processed.  It's all good.  kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This band is more than up and coming they have arrived, National Television appearances, International Magazine features, a soon to be released 8th album with a national release of CDs and Shirts in every mall in America, in a store I am not allowed to name, but im sure you can guess, is not something to scoff at. You cant call Americas Got Talent up-and-coming, nor Revolver Magazine. And if a Band cant get a WIKI page after winning SXSW three years in a row and in multiple categories, then what exactly does it take??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghm327 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just want to clarify that i am not in the band. I am a concerned friend of the band, and a store owner that carries the bands music and merchandise. And would like to point out the listing for the band "Giant Squid". Im sure comparing one band to another is not something the people doing verifications of WIKI pages would want to hear, but its completely relevant for this reason; Jason Sewell and Kimberly Freeman were both members of Giant Squid, or more specifically, Scott Sutton was in One-Eyed Doll and Jason Sewell was in Giant Squid. Now take note of the band Giant Squid, despite being on WIKI, Giant Squid is not even half as accomplished as the band One-Eyed Doll. [I suspect that being on a Label, no matter how small, is the major force in judging Bands for WIKI inclusion, this should not be so, especially in the 'Age of Direct Communication' we live in currently. Band such as NIN and Radiohead are going "off-label" and meeting resounding success with 'Pay-What-You-Want' internet download distribution models. Labels are no longer key to a bands fame or notability. Look at McChris!] So please consider this band in all seriousness. Kimberly Freeman is one of the hardest working musicians alive today, she exhibits a non-stop stream of talent and has the recognition of not only her enormous international fanbase, but of her peers in music. For instance, Martin Atkins of PigFace and owner of Invisible Records has recorded drum parts on her new One-Eyed Doll album set to release this year. Thank you. comment added by Ghm327
 * Keep - Note that most of the sources in the article as it stands today (5/26) are trivial or unreliable, and those that are reliable mostly mention this band only in passing. However, close inspection of the newspaper articles, especially from Austin Chronicle, reveals that the band really has won awards at SXSW, which gets them past criterion #9 of the band notability guideline. You could also make a case for #5 and #7 in that same guideline. The article needs to be cleaned up and probably reduced, but the band has achieved basic notability. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply -Just so. I'm counting on the genius of the Wikipedia process, and fully expect the article to be culled and to evolve.  I can't see the forest for the trees, at least initially, but that said I'm quite happy to see the article mature.  You have to start somewhere, and now we have begun. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Something vaguely between Delete and Weak Delete. Publicity-hungry local band that's mostly been mentioned, in passing, in several local community newspapers, right alongside Grandma Mabel's chili recipe and the local crochet group's plans for a summer bake sale. "Up and coming" says it best - once they're "up and here", so to speak, is the time for an article. The article seems, at a glance, to be well-referenced, but this is misleading - a closer look at the list shows that the references are mostly primary sources (the band's own website features heavily), blogs, user-generated content-farms, and (of course) YouTube. What's left is a passing blurb in the Austin Chronicle mentioning that the band won an award at SXSW (it would almost be more notable if the band didn't win an award of some sort at SXSW), and a few superficial mentions here and there. As far as I can gather, the "Hottest Chicks in Hard Rock" mention is on a web-only outtakes series, not the actual print magazine itself, and - given the nature of that particular feature - even if it were in the print magazine, would only extend notability to Ms. Freeman as a model, not the band as a musical ensemble. The same goes for her tie-in with AdventureQuest. The only remaining scrape with notability is the brief one-page bio in a Guitar World spinoff which comes across as somewhat of a walled-garden all-inclusive anthology along the lines of "Best Left-Handed Double-Bass Drummers From Mozambique" - if it was Guitar World itself, it might scrape by, but as it is, it's really straining credibility. If for whatever reason this article is kept, it needs to be cleaned up - the tone is entirely ill-suited for an encyclopedia, it reads much more like a press package. Badger Drink (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply As mentioned before this band has achieved a National presence, your comments are a bit inaccurate. Im not trying to disavow your credibility, in fact i welcome your critique as it provides ample opportunity to clarify the facts surrounding this band. Being Featured in Guitar Player and Revolver is no small feat. Both are internationally released and you are wrong if you are actually insinuating that the band was featured in 'Web Only Outtakes' this is completely inaccurate, additional photos of the bands leader Kimberly freeman were featured on one of the mags sites but this was in addition to magazine content. As for 'Several Local Community Newspapers' SXSW happens in Austin Texas, and the Austin Chronicle is the most noteworthy publication covering the Austin Texas Music scene, the fact that they also maintain a blog does not damage the credibility of One-Eyed Doll nor the Austin Chronicle. And just how is a band discredited by being documented and displayed on Youtube by fans all over the country exactly? That should be noted as a clear sign that they have a national presence. Once again i have to bring up the band 'Giant Squid' a very unnoteworthy band that has maintained a WIKI for quite some time now, YouTube results for 'giant squid band' only produce 104 hits, whereas 'one eyed doll' produces 1,400 results, and only 83 of those were uploaded by the band themselves. Their latest video, 'Your a Vampire' having been viewed 85,000+ times! BTW what band page does NOT read like a press package? Also, Press citations are key to WIKI recognition, and there is no such thing as a trivial mention of a band in the press. As far as bands go the slightest mention is a major deal. I would like to bring your attention to the following articles that detail how current internet business models function in the internet age, the old paradigms, of the record industry in particular, are no longer relevant, and therefore the criteria concerning Record Labels [Music Notability Guidelines #5] as well as the Gold Certification [Guideline #3] are outdated guidelines. http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php This article details what i mentioned in previous posts here, concerning bands such as NIN and Radiohead. http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/12/packaged_goods_media_vs_conversational_media_part_one_updated This article details the difference between Business models that rely on old-fashioned Distribution networks and how the Internet helps artists reach fans without the Distribution networks required in the past. Finally, Im sure that the 'Sita Sings the Blues' WIKI page is still running smoothly, and it serves as another example of a successful internet released medium that is certainly not backed by any Hollywood Studio. I know its not a band page but the arguments posed here to delete the OED WIKI could be used to justify removing the Sita Sings the Blues WIKI page, as well as the Mc Chris WIKI page, who also, like One-Eyed Doll, has never been signed to a major label. [BTW Kimberly Freeman herself being a model, which is totally true, she has modeled for Gloomth Clothing, is in no way a detracting element. The opposite im sure] comment added by Ghm327 Ghm327 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Furthermore, to add to what User: Doomsdayer520 wrote re band notability criteria, OED's work with AQW arguably accounts for #10 in  the band notability guideline, assuming that you take gaming to be a major medium nowadays in its own right.  YMMV.  kencf0618 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep. SXSW has become a big deal, getting covered in some depth, for example by the NYTimes. Success there is a reasonable predictor of music press coverage. In addition, guitarist etc Kimberly Freeman appears to be borderline notable on her own; if we delete this article the band coverage involving her plus the magazine coverage mentioned in this article would probably be enough to demonstrate notability, so we'd be keeping much of this content in that article. Better to have an article on the band, including coverage of its members who aren't notable independent of it, than an article on the most notable member with the rest of the band discussed like an afterthought. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that the Austin Music Awards are a "major music competition". Inks.LWC (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply. SXSW is the largest of the major Music festivals in Austin TX of all of the many Festivals there including LadyFest, Austin City Limits, Old Settlers Music Festival, Austin Family Music Festival, Kerrville Folk Festival, Austin Wine and Music Festival, Austin Fine Arts Festival, Austin Film Festival, Urban Music Festival, Fun Fun Fun Fest, Austin Reggae Festival, Zilker Garden Festival. Austin isnt some insignificant small town, and nor are any of the many things going on there. Besides this isnt a conversation about weather or not the Music Capital of the World or the SXSW event is of note. 184.190.218.169 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry that was me, I wasnt logged in. GHM327 Ghm327 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (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.