Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sunset Sound
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Pure Reason Revolution#The Sunset Sound. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sunset Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Does not meet notability. This was a non-notable band in that it meets no criteria under 'Bands' in WP:MUSIC. A Google search does not place this subject at the top of the search, and the second page found is this Wikipedia page. Much of the page is about the band which 'emerged' from this one (PRR)and as such simply repeats what is already on that band's page. The references used do not sustantiate the claims made about the band, and, with one exception, are very unreliable. For instance, the citation used to show 'critical acclaim' is a Velocity Recordings listing page, with nothing other than a track listing of a single release, several PRR dates and a promotional biography. I have looked over the Internet for any additional material which could show even the slightest piece of notability or achievement by this band, but can not find anything. User:Spoilydoily|Spoilydoily]] (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG in that Velocity Recordings doesn't seem to be a major label. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources, despite having members of another notable (?) band. Very little info about this actual band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This page is mainly about PRR who already have an article. None of the references reinforce the claims they are supposed to. Like a million other bands, this one simply does not meet notability. Mynameisalf (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Suspected sock-puppet comments of nominator confirmed through CheckUser; striking. James F. (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Really don't know why the strikethrough. Have emailed the admin as to why. Mynameisalf (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: members of this band went on to be part of a notable band, conferring notability. The band wasn't a 15-year-olds-banging-around-with-toy-guitars group; it was a band with several (albeit small) releases. It contains one sentence about PRR; however short the article is that isn't "mainly about PRR". The references do indeed support the claims made, and little info isnt a reason for deletion except if it was, say, a repetition of the title. This is (yet) another example of Spoilydoily's work, which seems soley based on turning up once a month to try and get as much PRR related material deleted as possible. Ironholds 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your (rather neurotic) comments on my editing history. Your article contains 8 lines of Sunset Sound and 10 lines of PRR references. Simply put, this is a 'non-article' about a band who achieved nothing. If you really believe the references support the claims made then it may be a good idea to be specific and expand the argumentSpoilydoily (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The claims made are things such as "this band opened stage x at reading" (followed by a reference with news of them opening a reading stage) "this band broke up because they felt the band didnt accurately represent the type of music they wanted to make" (followed by an interview with the signer saying that exact thing) and so on. It isn't something I should need to spell out. In addition it isn't "8 lines of sunset sound and 10 lines of PRR references" considering the only PRR line is "Chloe Alper and the two Courtney brothers later went on to form the New prog band Pure Reason Revolution". For notability see general DIS page gig review split news and info on opening reading. The band contained members of previous bands (and notable un's, see Period Pains_ and future notable ones (Pure Reason Revolution). Ironholds 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did look the references. The first says "Expect big things of Sunset Sound with former members of Period Pains and Gel they're already half way there!" --Does not indicate notability . The second "There performance is excellent and they look like their having a great time, the biggest problem is that they're over performing and you start to question if they mean it." (sic) --does not indicate notability. The third "Reading's premier indiepunkpop kids, featuring ex members of Gel and The Period Pains have split up.In their brief history they played Reading Festival last year and released a single on the Velocity label. Apparently the lead singer, Jon Courtney, will be back with a new project soon."--does not indicate notability. Where do you get the idea that these articles show notability WP:BAND?.It is even doubtful that DIS would be regarded as a "reliable source". The article does not really need a merge as much of it is already on the PRR page anyway, not that it is of the slightest interest or significance. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The claims made are things such as "this band opened stage x at reading" (followed by a reference with news of them opening a reading stage) "this band broke up because they felt the band didnt accurately represent the type of music they wanted to make" (followed by an interview with the signer saying that exact thing) and so on. It isn't something I should need to spell out. In addition it isn't "8 lines of sunset sound and 10 lines of PRR references" considering the only PRR line is "Chloe Alper and the two Courtney brothers later went on to form the New prog band Pure Reason Revolution". For notability see general DIS page gig review split news and info on opening reading. The band contained members of previous bands (and notable un's, see Period Pains_ and future notable ones (Pure Reason Revolution). Ironholds 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your (rather neurotic) comments on my editing history. Your article contains 8 lines of Sunset Sound and 10 lines of PRR references. Simply put, this is a 'non-article' about a band who achieved nothing. If you really believe the references support the claims made then it may be a good idea to be specific and expand the argumentSpoilydoily (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited, not even in reverse.Yobmod (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under WP:MUSIC it is; see "contains at least one notable musician"; at best this should be a redir, not a delete. Ironholds 13:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution#The Sunset Sound. The band is notable per WP:MUSIC#G6, and just as per that criterion a redirect is most appropriate: there already is a section in that band article containing most of the information from the article. It does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. --AmaltheaTalk 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC#G6 is a bit of a can of worms which looks like it may be dropped altogether. I read it as "contained one notable musician at the time the band itself was notable" which gives us a real chicken and egg. I do hear what you say about redirects, however the PRR page already has a subsection about the Sunset Sound (like you say, per WP:MUSIC#G6), so I suppose the question arises as to how folks are going to search for this band. It is much more plausible that a search will be done for PRR than the Sunset Sound, given their higher 'notability factor', in which case the history of the band will be presented, negating the need for a 'Sunset Sound' page at all. Therefore a redirect is not the way to go, whilst deletion will save confusion. A search on 'the sunset sound' will still come up with the PRR page, so nothing is lost. When all is said and done, SS were not a notable band, and, at the time did not have any notable members or have any notable songs. Hope you can follow my logic here :) Spoilydoily (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless it's a plausible search term at the very least, and even the current, weakened form of G6 finds the band notable. --AmaltheaTalk 18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it a 'plausible search term' and why should that or the current version of G6 make a minor band notable? On the contrary, G6 suggests the use of common sense in order to stop senseless backtracking. This band was not notable when it was in existence. Do you, or the writer suggest that Gel (prior to SS) was therefore a notable band, or that any old jam session that preceded Gel was notable? How's about parents of, or the midwife who delivered the band members who later became notable? Spoilydoily (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonetheless it's a plausible search term at the very least, and even the current, weakened form of G6 finds the band notable. --AmaltheaTalk 18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC#G6 is a bit of a can of worms which looks like it may be dropped altogether. I read it as "contained one notable musician at the time the band itself was notable" which gives us a real chicken and egg. I do hear what you say about redirects, however the PRR page already has a subsection about the Sunset Sound (like you say, per WP:MUSIC#G6), so I suppose the question arises as to how folks are going to search for this band. It is much more plausible that a search will be done for PRR than the Sunset Sound, given their higher 'notability factor', in which case the history of the band will be presented, negating the need for a 'Sunset Sound' page at all. Therefore a redirect is not the way to go, whilst deletion will save confusion. A search on 'the sunset sound' will still come up with the PRR page, so nothing is lost. When all is said and done, SS were not a notable band, and, at the time did not have any notable members or have any notable songs. Hope you can follow my logic here :) Spoilydoily (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution. While none of the given sources are more than trivial, meaning we can't justify keeping the article, redirects don't need to meet nearly the same standards. See WP:REDIRECT#KEEP, especially #2.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Redirect to Pure Reason Revolution as the Sunset Sound evolved into this group (not unlike The Four Lovers morphing into The Four Seasons and The Quarrymen evolving into The Beatles). Since there is a section discussing the Sunset Sound stage of the band's history at the proposed target, a redirect would be appropriate (see top of WP:RfD for mention as to when a redirect is most appropriately deleted). Sometimes groups like The Mugwumps are notable only for what they later become. For the Sunset Sound to merit its own standalone article, much more is needed to show that it meets WP:BAND, either by national/international recording release, national television appearances, or national tours. B.Wind (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2008 (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.