Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Reason Revolution

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 Pure Reason Revolution. No consensus Chloe Alper. Delete Jim Dobson. Delete Jamie Willcox. -- Jreferee t/c 06:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Reason Revolution

Appears to be a breach of both WP:BIO and WP:NMG. The language and detail of the article suggests it is a vanity page, and thus breach of WP:NOT. Google almost invariably returns an Official site which links to their Myspace. Unreferenced for months. Jza84 23:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they to appear to be breaches of WP:BIO, WP:NMG and WP:NOT. Language also suggests these are vanity pages, citing Myspace accounts:

Thanks, Jza84 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles mentioned contain conjecture and unverifiable material. Pages are also being used as promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.220.38 (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I've done some clean-up on the article, including adding three reliable citations (thus the article qualifies under WP:BAND criterion #1). Their first single made #74 in the UK chart, which may count under WP:BAND #2. They were signed to SonyBMG, with an early release on Poptones and a later European release on InsideOut, so they just about qualify under WP:BAND #5 too. They've toured the UK and toured internationally (as the support act), so that counts under WP:BAND #4. "pure reason revolution" produces 239,000 hits on Google; browsing through the first few pages, they are all about the band. While recognizing that the article needs clean-up, I am quite surprised that somebody could read the article and think it is not notable under WP:BAND. By the way, may I also point out WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, which explicity discourages use of the term "vanity" as being against WP:AGF. Bondegezou 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further to the above, the article has evidence under WP:BAND #11 too. The individual pages are more problematic. I suggest merging and re-directing Jim Dobson and Jamie Willcox, but I suggest keep for Chloe Alper. I've done some work on that article, including a citation for a minor chart placing and radio rotation for her earlier band Period Pains. Bondegezou 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe Alper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a notable musician with an interesting background. Her name produces 1,730 Google hits. The Wikipedia article about her is fact-based, objective and relevant. The language used on the page is not fanciful as 'Jza84' suggests. The page should not be deleted. Strange that 'Jza84' seems so determined to close all "Pure Reason Revolution"-related pages.... -- 84.9.36.81 (talk · contribs · logs) 09:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Alper has a distinct lack of notability as either a musician or a performer. On one of her publicity shots available on the internet she clearly has the key note names written on scraps of paper and stuck to the keys. She openly admits in an internet interview to having only started playing the bass 2 years ago. Her page was self-penned, uses fanciful language and is self-promoting. I suggest it is either deleted or replaced with a page showing more of her musical training and background. The same applies to both Willcox and, to a lesser extent, Dobson. -- Justpassinby (talk · contribs · logs) 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's some unsigned commentary above, so I'm not certain who's saying what. However, I would like to point out that musical ability or training is not a criterion for determining notability. So, for example, with Chloe Alper, it is irrelevant how good a bass player she may or may not be: what matters is the chart success, radio airplay, releases and touring by her teen band Period Pains and now Pure Reason Revolution. I also do not see any evidence that her article or any of the others were self-penned. While some clean-up is in order, that's a reason to clean up the pages, not to delete them. Bondegezou 15:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that if there is any content to keep here, it would perhaps be the Chloe Alper article. However, I'll come clean about my motivations for my deletion nomination - I know (as in "know personally") Jim Dobson and, having found his entry through the List of people from Oldham article, it is my strongest view that he is not of international, national or even local acclaim (I don't know him because of his work!), and does not warrant an article. Of course it's not a normal, or even suitable grounds to nominate an article, and that is why, having made cursory searches for Pure Reason Revolution elsewhere, I maintain these articles are breaches of WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Jza84 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've done further work on both Pure Reason Revolution and Chloe Alper, including adding further reliable citations. PRR clearly satisfy WP:BAND and I think there's enough evidence that Chloe Alper does too (under criteria #1, #2, #6 and #11). Reading all of the above, I think there are issues concerning Jza84's initial nomination, so I feel a speedy keep is in order for PPR and Alper, with perhaps new AfDs for Dobson and Willcox. Jza84: can you explain why you feel the PPR and Alper articles fail WP:BIO/WP:BAND in the light of the evidence given and further edits made? Bondegezou 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- if you read the 12 point "ensembles" criteria for inclusion at WP:BAND, you should be enlightened that this band does not form a notable enough entry according not to my own personal tastes and sensibilities, but according to Wikipedia convention and policy. Other than what they describe about themselves (i.e. via the three inline sources) which is in breach of WP:BAND, that there is one brief mention of them by Rick Wakeman does not constitute a gold record, or a Grammy, or an internationally acclaimed tour. If I was to remove the unsourced content (which I have the right to do so under WP:CITE), you would invariably be left with three sentences; one of which describes their style and another their influences. It is on these grounds I maintain it should go. Jza84 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'm sorry, but I don't think you've read WP:BAND correctly. For example, "an internationally acclaimed" tour is not a requirement: rather, it says, "gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources". Pure Reason Revolution qualify under criteria #1, #2, #4 and #11. I will go through these in more detail:
- "1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - The page now cites an article about the band in The Independent, and two articles about the style of music (New Prog) in general which feature the band prominently (one in The Times and one in The Guardian). That appears to meet the criterion.
- "2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." - Their first single release, "Apprentice of the Universe", made #74 in the UK singles chart and #12 in the indie chart. Pass.
- "4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." - The band have toured the UK and, as a support act, have toured internationally. I'm confident that information is true, however reliable sources are not given in the article. Let's say borderline on this criterion.
- "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label [...]." - The band were signed to SonyBMG, a major label, who distributed the full album The Dark Third and the previous mini-album Cautionary Tales for the Brave. Pass (unless you quibble that Cautionary Tales for the Brave does not count as a full album).
- "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - The article describes regular radio play on a major network. Pass.
That appears to me to be ample evidence that they meet WP:BAND. If you remain concerned about unreferenced claims on the page, might I suggest that the appropriate course of action is to tag those parts of the article that need further citation and then discuss deleting material that remains unreferenced on the Talk page. I will endeavor myself to find further citations for the article content. Bondegezou 13:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte to points 5 and 11: Band has NOT released 2 albums. It has released the same album (The Dark Third) on 2 labels, and a subset of the same album onan 'EP'. 'The Dark Third' was the only album contractually created for and released by Sony/BMG. It was re-licensed to InsideOut. Can you please reference which 'Major Network' has included any PRR single on a playlist (ie placed in rotation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassinby (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You are right that there is some overlap between the Cautionary Tales for the Brave mini-album and The Dark Third, but they are distinct releases: CTftB is not a "subset" of The Dark Third. Three of the six tracks on CTftB were included on the UK and US releases of The Dark Third, and a further CTftB track was included on the subsequent European re-release of The Dark Third. That does lessen their claim under criterion #5, although their partial fulfillment of that criterion still seems relevant to me. As for criterion #11, the article refers to radio support by various channels, including BBC Radio 1 and 2. Of course, the band need only satisfy one of the WP:BAND criteria to be notable. Since the above debate, I have done further work on both the Pure Reason Revolution and Chloe Alper articles, concentrating on adding further citations. Bondegezou 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Justpassinby: your edit history is entirely around Pure Reason Revolution and Jim Dobson and your edits, while informative, might be considered to violate Wikipedia's policy on having articles written from a neutral point of view. The nominator, Jza84, has already declared a possible conflict of interest in knowing Jim Dobson personally. I hope I am not being too forward in asking whether you too might have a particular connection to Dobson or the band? Bondegezou 15:06, 12 October 2007 (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.