Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Dollar Grey

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. Despite a vigorous defense of the article by its author and one other editor, no one else is convinced of the band's notability. The sources provided were either not from reliable sources, or did not represent significant coverage of the band. Additionally, it was not demonstrated that the band fulfills any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. The article itself is a classic case of refbombing, complete with multiple facebook and youtube entries, and using the same sources multiple times to inflate the references section. If the band takes it to the next level (perhaps releasing an album on a notable label) and gets some significant coverage in reliable sources, then this article can be re-created. —SW— ^confabulate 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Dollar Grey

Two Dollar Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsigned band with one self-published EP, a few reviews in non-reliable sources (blogs/webzines), doesn't appear to be notable - and only one editor involved (potential COI)? Fosse8 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Two Dollar Grey has over 5 independent references, which include Just a Show starring Keith King, Hard Rock Radio Live, Condemned Entertainment (who has worked with several national artists) and No Cover Phoenix Magazine. Additionally, per the redirect for discussion on November 1, 2011, the band has been a "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". The interviews with Keith King and Hard Rock Radio Live are sufficient for notability. Thanks, Phoenix!--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The editor above is the only meaningful contributor to the article in question, and has also edited the Just a Show article (itself tagged for notability) to insert information about Two Dollar Grey. Hence the suspicion of COI. To Jax 0677, I'd comment that: (a) That was something you said, not the outcome of the RFD. (b) That RFD wasn't a discussion regarding the notability of the band. This is, and I contend the "sources" provided don't cut it as far as WP:N is concerned. Google brings up nothing but promotional material and a couple of non-notable webzines. But it'd be good to hear some other thoughts. Fosse8 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment De-orpaning articles is encouraged by Wikipedia. While I edited Just a Show, I had nothing to do with creating the interviews with "Just a Show" nor "Hard Rock Radio Live". These interviews were broadcast nationally and on the internet, and the band is not unsigned. Their affiliation with Liquid Metal Records has been affirmed by Prescott eNews, and the band had an interview earlier this year with Maximum Ink Music Magazine of Madison, WI.

Lastly, I strongly encourgage more editors to get involved in editing this article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being disingenuous. It's not enough that a source, somewhere, happens to mention a thing you use in the article. Adding new references would be helpful if they meet the GNG and the stipulations of WP:N and WP:MUSIC (reliable third party sources giving non-trivial coverage - i.e. not some non-notable webzines, local fanzines etc, or brief interviews with the band themselves - see WP: PRIMARY). I note the one-line reference in a local news sports report being rather spuriously used to verify that the band is indeed "signed" to "Liquid Metal Records". A completely unsuitable source, but on further investigation, this band are, of course, the only band "signed" to the non-notable label, which has no website and no independent coverage, and has released one record in its two years of existence (http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/albums/label/-/1400811753/all/) ... it's clearly a self-published release. I echo the call for other editors to get involved, but from a COI point of view, it would be good if for the purposes of this AfD you'd kindly declare whether or not you have any connection with this band. Fosse8 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have already stated my case for notability, and shall comply with the decision of the greater Wikipedia community. Like many editors of other music groups, I am a fan of the band and I have purchased their album. Other than this, I have no connection with the band.

I would also like to point out that there is little to no contest to Hard Rock Radio Live, who has interviewed Yngwie Malmsteen, The Sammus Theory and Black Label Society among other notable artists. The Hard Rock Radio Live interview with Two Dollar Grey (like the Just a Show interview) was several minutes long, and spoke at length about the band, which satisfies bullet point 12 of WP:MUSIC.

After I personally created a redirect from "Two Dollar Grey" to Come Undone (Duran Duran song), it was recommended that I create an article entitled "Two Dollar Grey", which I gladly did. This decision was accepted by the community, and I am surprised that this is being brought to AfD months after the fact as opposed to immediately. I will usually start a small article with enough information to present notability to assess such notability before I expand on it. After spending a lot of time on the article, it is this kind of thing that discourages people from writing for Wikipedia. My $0.02.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody "owns" Wikipedia articles, regardless of how much time they spent writing them; there's no need to get defensive. I don't know why the original RfD debate wasn't followed up with a proper discussion of the band's notability, but I'm calling for it now. (I found the article because I was looking for Niue and accidentally made a typo ("Nieu"), which for some reason redirected to a really long, detailed, poorly-sourced NPOV article about some unsigned band. From the content of the article, and from the references provided, it looked like an AfD candidate on various grounds, clearly written either by someone connected with the group (hence the COI question), or a really committed fan. The quality of the sources seems - to me - to be nowhere near as strong as you keep asserting. But that's just my opinion.)

I've got no axe to grind. I don't know anything about the band, they might be great, I'm sure they're nice people etc etc, but the as yet unanswered question is: are they notable enough, now, for an article? I think "no", but I know nothing about this scene. If some other editors look at this AfD and the consensus is "yes", then great - that means we're building a better encyclopedia. Plenty of very notable things have been through deletion nominations because the article didn't really do them justice as to why they deserved it; off the top of my head, check out the histories for Twitter, or Levi Stubbs.

So, is anyone else going to comment on this thing, or what? Fosse8 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment To your points:

1. I agree that no one owns any Wikipedia article. I was simply making a statement about why some editors choose to stop editing Wikipedia.

2. "Nieu" is a plausible typo of "Nhieu", the family name of the backup vocalist on the song "Come Undone" by Two Dollar Grey.

3. The article is written by a committed fan. ESTK was likely also initially written by a committed fan.

4. Assuming that the sources are not reliable, the band has still had a "substantial broadcast segment across a national radio [network]" (and on a side note, has also played at the 2011 Fiesta Bowl Block Party and a 2012 Arizona Outlaws halftime show). The radio broadcast likely satisfies bullet point 12 of WP:MUSIC.

Again, I will let the AfD run its course.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Weak delete. This band appears to me to be on the verge of achieving notability, but they're not there yet. Most of the references are not to reliable sources, so they don't satisfy WP:GNG. I don't think WP:MUSIC point 12 is being correctly applied, although it's always been part of WP:MUSIC that I've least understood. If the article is deleted, I hope the content can be saved should the band achieve greater fame in due course. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment While anyone can post an audio/video clip on the internet, Just a Show appears to be a substantive and legitimate operation, as iTunes has 55 copyrighted episodes of the show available for streaming. Hard Rock Radio Live has streaming audio broadcast which includes interviews with several notable artists. Despite claims that WP:MUSIC Point 12 is not satisfied, no one has testified as to WHY. There likely are many smaller, lesser known bands with articles on Wikipedia (The Sammus Theory being one of them) who meet only a small number of WP:MUSIC requirements. I feel that these two radio interviews do separate Two Dollar Grey from ordinary garage bands. Thanks.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC point 12 refers to "a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". "Just a Show" is a show that is broadcast by a number of different stations across the US, but that doesn't make it a "national radio or TV network". Ditto "Hard Rock Radio Live". At least that's how I interpret WP:MUSIC. They probably count as reliable sources with respect to the basic WP:GNG criterion, which would seem to be the article's strongest claim to notability, but I don't think they satisfy the intent of WP:MUSIC #12.

That less notable bands have articles is a reason for those articles to be deleted, not for this one to be kept. I suggest you start an WP:AFD for The Sammus Theory. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

* NB: I see Jax0677 created that article too, and is its only substantial contributor. I see it was prodded several months ago and Jax0677 removed it, adding a load of justification (like the stuff below) to the talk page. A strong AfD candidate, depending on what the community thinks of this one. Fosse8 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The clips from Just a Show and Hard Rock Radio Live (HRRL) are posted on the internet for the whole United States (and the world) to see. The fact that HRRL is an internet radio station available to people all over the country makes it an national radio network (again, while anyone can post an audio/video clip on the internet, HRRL has continuous streaming audio broadcast which includes interviews with several notable artists). If HRRL counts as a reliable source, then combined with their continuous streaming audio broadcast, their interview with Two Dollar Grey counts as "a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", which satisfies WP:MUSIC #12.

There is no objection to The Sammus Theory (TST) being in rotation on MTV2 in 2008, and that they have been featured on The Big Rock Show, so it is for these reasons that TST was kept as an article. Additionally, TST won Rockstar Uproar Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands two years running. If Two Dollar Grey meets one of the twelve requirements, then it meets WP:N.

Lastly, going by this same standard, if Maximum Ink Magazine wrote about Two Dollar Grey, and Roadrunner Records has acknowledged Maximum Ink Magazine as being a legitimate organization that interviewed Black Stone Cherry, then the Maximum Ink Magazine reference also qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks :) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else have any input, other than the person who created the article and has been its sole contributor (other than bots or minor corrective edits)? There's clearly a difference of opinion as to the quality of the sources offered and whether WP:MUSIC is satisfied; not wanting to stifle debate, but I feel Jax0677's position has been made as clear as it's going to get, and it would be good to hear some more opinions. Fosse8 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I couldn't agree with you more about getting input from others, so that this process doesn't drag out indefinitely.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation later if and when they meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. This appears to be an up and ciming band, but hasn't acheived the coverage needed to estblish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Whpq, do you have a policy based reason for your Delete vote?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply Yes - I do have a policy based reason. As stated above "hasn't acheived the coverage needed to estblish notability". To be more verbose about it... There needs to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article falls well short with respect to being either a reliable source, being independent, or being significant coverage. As such, it fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply Your point is well taken, however, the article still meets WP:MUSIC Point 12 in the strict sense of the rule.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply - I disagree. They have not been featured in national broadcast media as clips being distributed on the Internet does not qualify as broadcast media. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply In addition to being a "[clip distributed] on the Internet", this interview was streamed live nationally during an internet radio broadcast. "Broadcast" is defined by Wiktionary as "transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver".--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Feel free to fine dice the semantics as much as you wish, internet radio is not a broadcast medium that I would count towards establishing notability for point 12 of the music notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply You are entitled to your own opinion, but I would like to point out that not just anybody can get an interview on internet radio. Internet radio has taken substantial market share in the world of broadcast, just like television did to newspaper. Wiktionary defines radio as "The continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio".--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Being somewhat new and inexperienced to Wikipedia, last year, I created a redirect from 2$G to the song "Come Undone" by Duran Duran. After having done so, I was specifically advised to create an article about the band, and I did what they asked of me. A few individuals have made constructive edits to the article since that time.

Just a Show may not be a national radio show, the references given may be in question and MIGHT not be of a sufficient number nor breadth in and of themselves to create a Wikipedia article. However, it is almost conclusive that by definition, 2$G has been the "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio [network]" (on HRRL). In the interview, Nate Gullickson spoke at length about the band.

While there are 2-3 "[Delete]" votes and one "Keep" vote, this is to be a discussion based on policy guidlines. I used the guidelines shown at WP:MUSIC in order to decide whether or not I should create an article about the band. If we are to disregard item 12 of this policy, then users will likely not have a good handle about which topics they should write. While I understand the need to "weed the garden", in the bigger scheme of things, deleting articles like this that (more than likely) follow policy may discourage people from editing and slow the growth of Wikipedia, the latter of which (being the growth of Wikipedia) is a goal set forth by the Wikimedia foundation.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Point 12 of the music notability has not been disregarded as evidenced by the discussion of that point above. There is simply disagreement on the interpretation and application. -- Whpq (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reply Your comments state that "internet radio is not a broadcast medium that I would count towards establishing notability for point 12 of the music notability criteria" and that "clips being distributed on the Internet does not qualify as broadcast media". These statements are both your opinion (while my comments are also only my opinion, as everything is a point of contention).

1. Nate Gullickson of Two Dollar Grey was the featured subject of the broadcast (the only person that Cynthia Paulson of HRRL talked to during the interview)

2. The interview lasted a substantial amount of time (in my opinion)

3. The interview involved broadcast ("transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver")

4. The interview was available nationally via an organization that performs "continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio" to the entire United States.

Based on an explicit interpretation (or even a reasonable interpretation) of WP:MUSIC Point 12, there is little room for debate, given that some of the definitions of the words come from Wiktionary. Negating Point 12 would likely require a loose interpretation of the rule.

If these four points can not be legitimately negated, then the result of this AfD should likely be No Consensus. Thank you :)--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your second-to-last paragraph is correct - there is indeed little room for debate based on WP:MUSIC. However, your conclusion is wrong. To quote from the guideline itself: ...Meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.

What we have here is a very long article about a band who, on the basis of the article - however excellent they are - are not notable. Right now, there is nothing, nothing, to suggest this band is any more notable than any other random selection from dozens of unsigned rock bands in the Phoenix area. Hence the AfD: if there aren't better sources, the band aren't notable enough. Some of the extra sources you've mustered are of very poor quality, and getting engaged in semantic hair-splitting over the widest possible interpretation of the words "national radio or TV network" to prove whether such and such a source could technically be said to meet the letter of one subheading of one notability guideline is unhelpful. I'd agree with every other person here that you're working to a very strange interpretation of WP:MUSIC, but even leaving that aside, scraping a pass on Point 12 isn't enough here - start with the WP:GNG and ask yourself, in all honesty, leaving aside the fact you're a fan, is this band notable enough for Wikipedia? Never mind a longer and more detailed article than Kreator or Cannibal Corpse, I'm talking about whether they merit a two-line stub noting they exist? And I'd argue that by every possible applicable standard, right now, no, they don't. It's a shame, because obviously a lot of time went into the article, and it would make a good basis for a fan page, not to mention a Wikipedia article if they do something notable in the future. But they're clearly not there yet. Fosse8 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply Maximum Ink Magazine and PureGrainAudio.com address Two Dollar Grey directly in detail, are legitimate organizations acknowledged by Roadrunner Records and are not agents of Two Dollar Grey. PureGrainAudio.com has had interviews with Opeth, Airbourne and Soulfly. The HRRL interview actually took place and was on the HRRL internet site at the time of editing. Not every unsigned band has had a radio interview, so I would not say that "there is [nothing] to suggest this band is any more notable than any other random selection from dozens of unsigned rock bands in the Phoenix area". Everything is a point of contention, so it is up to the Wikipedia community to decide now.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG. A Google search produces several reviews and interviews (or what I consider significant coverage) by several sources. The sources, unless there's some sort of mass conspiracy going on here, the likes of which I've never seen in my several years on Wikipedia, are independent of the subject of this article. Lastly, there is no reason to believe that the sources are not reliable. Fosse8, you're simply incorrect that there's "nothing" to suggest the band is notable. Your opinion seems to be that the sources presented are either not notable (which doesn't matter, whatsoever) or not reliable to which you have provided no evidence. The reviews and interviews are certainly more than "a two-line stub noting they exist". I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that this and this article are less than "significant coverage". OlYeller21^Talktome 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Maximum ink and Puregrainaudio articles are some coverage, minor in my opinion. But everything else I've been able to find is not what I would classify as a reliable source. Is there some specific coverage you found in the search results that convinces you? -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    The two I pointed out convince me. I don't see a reason to look past that. Do you see a reason to go past simply satisfying WP:GNG? Do you have any reason to consider them unreliable? I take that charge very seriously. To me, I consider it an assumption that a source may lie for some reason. In any case, Wikipedia or otherwise, I take that charge very seriously and the burden of proof lies with the accuser. I would not consider the coverage from the two websites you mentioned to be "considerable coverage".

    They could easily be compared to any old blog but they aren't that. Hard-rock-reviews.com has interviewed several bands considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. That's no small feat, in my opinion. 40ozrobot.com has several writers and some with Masters degrees. While that doesn't imply reliability, I don't see any reason to question its reliability. I haven't read through all the back and forth here but is there some reason that this Maximum Ink article isn't being used to establish notability? OlYeller21^Talktome 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    Calm down. Your assertion seems to be that any source counts as reliable, and any suggestion that a source might not cut it as per WP:RS is an insult - do I have that right? If so, I don't think your definition of a reliable source tallies with WP:RS and its stipulations on self-published sources, and as a result, I'd dispute that the GNG is satisfied. But that's the (two) dollar question, I suppose. My point, as it's been throughout this whole AfD, is that the article doesn't assert why the subject is notable. The only sources provided look - to me - like a bunch of local blogs, small-scale review sites, Internet radio shows (none of which seems to be notable, as you've said - I know this isn't necessarily a criterion for establishing a reliable source, though I beg to differ that it "doesn't matter whatsoever"), who've reviewed the self-published CD this unsigned band sent them, or who've interviewed a local band. To me, it seems they'd be in a grey area (no pun intended) per WP:RS at best. But I don't know this field. I'm happy to defer to those with better knowledge. If the sources provided are considered to be reliable (per WP:RS, not the dictionary definition you seem to be using), then there's no issue - like I said, I've no axe to grind, and I wish this band well in their endeavours. But every attempt to find better sources so far has instead ended up with an outspoken defence as to why the existing source could just about cut the mustard. "National radio broadcast" becomes "streamed on the Internet". "Coverage in the Prescott News" becomes "a one-line mention in a 4000-line sports report." For Maximum Ink and 40oz Robot, neither of which I've ever heard of - not to say they're unreliable, just that I've personally never heard of them, they might be hugely well respected publications in this field - the goalposts get moved again: "these guys are reliable, because they've interviewed some notable bands (and indeed, some of them have masters degrees!)"... In good faith, I don't believe the GNG is satisfied here, hence the AfD. Fosse8 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I am and was perfectly calm. No, it is not correct. Any emotional response that you've read into my text is your own interpretation. I'm simply implying that calling a source unreliable, in my opinion, isn't something to do lightly. I skimmed the rest of your response as it's quite long for such a simple discussion. I see comments about national broadcasting to which I never even brought up. That you've personally never heard of anything is rather unimportant here on Wikipedia unless you're claiming to be an expert which you have specifically stated that you are not. The authors having Masters degrees from highly regarded institutions goes a long way, in my book. If you had such an education or know someone who does, you would know that their reputation is worth more than the piece of paper their degree is printed on. More evidence, in my opinion, that the source is reliable. They didn't review local bands. They reviewed bands, as I said, are notable on Wikipedia.

• • I don't understand the goal of your response. Are you attempting to defend yourself or change my mind? Defending yourself isn't needed as you're entitled to your opinion; as am I. If you're attempting to change my mind or influence a patrolling admin, keeping your responses short, to the point, and refraining from using sarcasm such as "...", would be beneficial to everyone involved. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The WP:GNG is a strong guideline, but I do not view it as a simple exercise in reference counting, and the type and nature of the coverage needs to be considered. I do not view it as a simple exercise is reference counting where somehow, two articles is an automatic pass. I have read the Maximum Ink and Puregrainaudio articles along whith a bunch of others. I've found the overall ocverage to be short for what I consider is needed to meet the general notability guideline, and have also stated why. I'm always open to changing my mind, but none of the sourcing I've found or in the article have added up to be enough at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • That's a fair argument and I can't really argue with it. I think we simply draw the same line in different places. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply
1. Just a Show interviewed Nate Gullickson and Mike Ballinger, and stated in text that Nate is part of Two Dollar Grey (2$G) in Phoenix, Arizona. The show is well established, and has dozens of copyrighted episodes available for stream on iTunes. For this reason, I consider this a reliable source.

2. Hard Rock Radio Live (HRRL) interviewed Nate Gullickson of 2$G. The five items below leave little doubt that HRRL meets WP:MUSIC Point 12.

a. Nate Gullickson was the featured subject of the broadcast (the only person that Cynthia Paulson of HRRL talked to during the interview),

b. The interview lasted a substantial amount of time (in my opinion),

c. The interview involved broadcast ("transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver"),

d. The interview was available nationally via an organization that performs "continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio" to the entire United States,

e. HRRL has also interviewed Yngwie Malmsteen, The Sammus Theory and Black Label Society among other notable artists.

3. Roadrunner Records is a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, which is a $3 billion corporation. They have acknowledged PureGrainAudio.com and Maximum Ink Magazine, which makes it likely that they are reliable sources and legitimate organizations.

4. PureGrainAudio.com, which is acknowledged in an article by Roadrunner Records states that:

a. 2$G is from Phoenix, Arizona,

b. They are a musical ensemble offering 'their own unique version of "groove rock"', and

c. "Saw You There" [SYT (containing "You Don't Belong" and "Did Me Right")] dropped in September of 2011.

I believe that this is enough for part of an article about a musical ensemble, combined with other sources that follow here.

5. Condemned Entertainment stated that 2$G came together in and mentioned their 'uniquely styled version of “Groove Rock”', and stated that SYT (containing "You Don't Belong" and "Did Me Right") was released in September of 2011. The site also mentions the names and roles of each of the band members, and shows samples of "Forgive Me" and "In Your Head" by the band, proving that the songs exist and showing what the songs sound like. The site contains samples of the songs on SYT, corroborated by Amazon.com.

6. Maximum Ink music magazine states that Two Dollar Grey is from Phoenix, AZ, and lists the names and roles of each of the band members.

7. The majority of organizations in the world are small businesses. 40oz. Robot wrote a lengthy article about "Saw You There" that states:

a. 2$G is a a five-piece band from Phoenix (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine),

b. The article mentions the album SYT and all of its songs by name (corroborated by PureGrainAudio.com and Amazon.com) respectively, and

c. The article mentions all of the band members and their roles (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine).

The remainder of this article is largely subjective, and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material. The names of the band members are also listed in the video for "You Don't Belong".

8. Steal the Spotlight mentions:

a. The album SYT and all of its songs by name (corroborated by PureGrainAudio.com and Amazon.com), and

b. All of the band members and their roles (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine).

The remainder of this article is largely subjective, and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material.

9. No Cover Magazine, a national music magazine with 1.5 decades of experience listed on Dun & Bradstreet states that 2$G was formed in 2010.

Given these nine bullet points and the corroboration, I feel that Condemned Entertainment, Maximum Ink music magazine, PureGrainRadio.com, 40oz. Robot and Steal the Spotlight are all in depth and reliable sources. We have two articles that review the musical details of the entire album, whose factual details are corroborated by Amazon.com and others. We also have four well established organizations to corroborate all of the other articles.

I believe that the band is notable, because they have met WP:MUSIC Point 12, and because of the articles written about them by people independent of the band, and the fact that the information written in the articles is corroborated.

The point of requiring third party sources, is because if we could use first party sources, everyone would be notable. This band may not be as big as Michael Jackson, but I have stated my reasoning for notability per the WP guidelines. While I see much opinionated basis for deleting the article, I am seeing less and less factual basis as time goes on.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that last sentence simply isn't true, and I find the consistent assumption of bad faith a little insulting. Notability is not verifiability, I don't think anyone is arguing that the band doesn't exist. My point is that - according to the article - the band hasn't done anything, besides release a self-published EP. Per policy, not opinion, the article MUST assert and explain the subject's notability. I'd expect stuff about their live shows, their following, their sales, support gigs, label interest and so on - but there's nothing of substance there. Instead, lots of information about their EP and their video, but no reason why all this belongs in an encylopedia. The only thing being put forward to say this band is notable is that they've received coverage in various third-party sources, and so the key question - the only question - is whether that coverage meets the requirements of WP:RS, WP:MUSIC and the WP:GNG. That's what's being debated here. I nominated the article because I don't believe the sources hold up per those guidelines - that's as far as any opinion goes, for me and (as far as I can see) every other editor on the page. Two editors have agreed with me and two (including you) have disagreed. That's great, that's what this is all about, and if it helps clarify some points (does Internet radio really "count" for the purposes of WP:MUSIC? Do reviews and interviews of an unsigned band automatically confer notability regardless of the sources? If not, what's the threshold?), then it'll all have been worth it. Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, this is a good faith AfD and I have no interest in Two Dollar Grey. I've purposely not even listened to their music until this is over purely so as not to form a biased opinion one way or the other (because whether they're excellent or awful, it makes no difference to notability), though I'm certainly curious to hear it after all this! Fosse8 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply The article talks about how the band has been reviewed by several independent sources and how it has been interviewed by HRRL (there is little doubt about the latter). The two lengthy reviews are third party reviews. Having third party publications means that other people are interested in the band. The article shows a picture of Jessilina performing with Craig, which I took at a live show. I hesitate to put information about their live shows, their following, their sales and support gigs, because that (and tour dates, and names of bands they have opened for) tends to become promotional. There are many successful independent bands, Korn being one of them, and I don't think that label support is relevant here (or anywhere). I don't feel there needs to be this specific information that you suggest, and if it does, you will need to show me where it says that. Many bands out there have stubs as Wikipedia articles, and many never release any videos.

WP:RS keeps getting brought up, but I ask EXACTLY which part of WP:RS is not met? I have specified nine bullet points as to why the sources corroborate one another, are factually correct, and are quite well established. Everything mentioned is ultimately corroborated by well established sources (if I am wrong, let me know where). OlYeller21 and I have stated our positions on why WP:RS, WP:MUSIC and the WP:GNG are met.

Please explain EXACTLY why they are not met.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You both may or may not have valid arguments but do you really expect anyone to read these enormous responses? This is one article about one band. We're not debating some incredibly complicated moral dilemma.

Ask yourself if you're actually changing anyone's mind by bringing up new arguments or simply repeating what you've already stated (several times) and expecting someone else to change their mind. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I must echo OlYeller21 at this point. Rehashing the same arguments over and over again serves no useful purpose. From what I've observed in AFD, a huge wall of text between two editors slugging it out in a deletion discussion often seems to discourage other editors from bothering with entering the discussion. That's not helpful in coming to a consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and apologise I haven't helped matters. I don't often propose articles for deletion and somehow felt compelled to keep replying, as if it was my duty or something. Is it too late/bad form to remove most of my tl;dr waffle? Fosse8 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's generally poor form to remove text as it leaves a gap in the conversation. Best just leave it alone. -- Whpq (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lengthy responses. I also felt compelled to keep replying to each individual point that was made. We are rapidly approaching two weeks now, so what's our verdict?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator will review the discussion and determine the next step. Wikipedia:Deletion process provides good information in general about Wikipedia's deletion process. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Most sources, including the second linked by OlYeller21, are pieces "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" that are the exception for WP:BAND#1. I see no evidence that 40ozrobot are a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Many other do not verify the text of the article and appear to be there just to make the band appear more notable than they are. I'm not seing the coverage in multiple sources needed. About #12 Hard Rock Radio Live are not a national radio network. A several minutes long interview is not being the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment, A half hour piece where someone other than themselves are talking about would be. It also lack verifiability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reply Although part of some of the articles that I mentioned are where the aritst talks about themselves, there are a part of those articles where the writers talk about the band. About 40ozrobot, "Many other do not verify the text of the article" and HRRL, please see my reply of 01:07, 27 March 2012. How is HRRL not a national radio network? With the limited amount of time that news stations have available, several minutes long is about as good as it gets any more.

About the numbered points in that reply.

1 The band talking about themselves

2 The band talking about themselves

3 One is just a listing. other is unrelated to 2$G and does not verify text (WP:BOMBARD)

4 Just a listing. appears to by text supplied to them [1]

5 The band talking about themselves, site is a Booking, Management and Touring company

6 The band talking about themselves (same as hard-rock -reviews

7 Not a reliable source

8 Not a reliable source

9 Just a listing

Your reasoning about what makes a reliable source is not policy based and is flawed

What's with the "and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material"

If you disagree about 40oz. Robot then taht leaves us with one good source, not enough.

About HRRL, they are not radio, duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This AfD has been outstanding for two weeks and a day now. Is this AfD going to be dispositioned soon (relist, judgment or otherwise)?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Patience young grasshopper. An admin will make an appropriate decision when the time is ripe. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Added information to article requested by Fosse8 With the exception of "their sales" (which is not always published by private companies nor independent bands), I have added the information to the article requested by Fosse8, "live shows, their following, their sales, support gigs, label interest".--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2012 (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.