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)[reply]

Dollshot[edit]

Dollshot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Artaria195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
See my response below Artaria195 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Artaria195[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

— Mae2030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment @Artaria195: 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 Mae2030'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)[reply]
@Drewmutt:, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
The Red Hook Star Revue is a concert announcement. [1] The Downtown Music Gallery Newsletter appears to be distributed via e-mail and typically for the purpose of selling records. [2] I cannot find the NYC Jazz Record online. Here's the Underwolf catalogue. [3] 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)[reply]
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.[4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Nilknarf711 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Artaria195 (talk • contribs).

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Category