Deletion of Two Dollar Grey

Comment: The  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per .  A https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22Two%20Dollar%20Grey%22&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=2d61b1e856bd1cf1&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1298&bih=824 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 http://40ozrobot.com/home/?p=2841 this and http://www.hard-rock-reviews.com/2012/01/interview-with-two-dollar-grey.html this article are less than "significant coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:RS||WP:V)