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. Consensus is that the subject of the article is notable, although there is some debate over whether or not he should be documented in the parent band article or in a stand-alone article. If a merge is believed to be appropriate, it can, of course, be proposed and discussed in article talk space as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Courtney

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Jon Courtney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
    I really would appreciate it if contributers to this page would address the issues of WP:NOT WP:MUSIC and how this subject relates to them. Wikipedia eligibity should not be based on opinion or conjecture, nor is association with anything of notability (no matter how tenuous) reason enough to merit a separate entry. There is little point in merging this subject as all of it is replicated on the PRR page anyway. Justpassinby (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the above insinuation by Bondegezou: I do not have an issue with Pure Reason Revolution per se, but I do have an issue with their inclusion in Wikipedia on the grounds of insignificance and notability, and, as we have already discussed, I will challenge that entry in due course. It is well known that you champion this genre of music and that you are a fan of the band, appearing as you do on their Myspace list of 'friends', and are possibly a personal friend of theirs and have an, as yet, undeclared interest.
    If we can concentrate on this article however then I agree with with you that any duplicate, irrelevant hearsay or unreliably sourced material should be deleted. I would therefore ask you to read the article again and check the sources i.e actually read them. How a person can be 'notable for the references to and similarities with various, often obscure, sources' is a mystery to me. To whom is he notable? The author ? (who, incidentally references himself via a free forum website - read the references).

    'Lyrically, Courtney is very interested in dreams and often uses a "stream of consciousness" technique[6]'. Is this notable? Does it merit encyclopaedic entry? The citation leads to a Proboard fan's forum to which the band (PRR) contributes. The rest of the citations are to promotional band material, a fan's page - the same fan who wrote the original PRR page, incidentally - or social networking pages.Justpassinby (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Justpassinby, I like PRR's music, but I have no connection to the band whatsoever and no conflict of interest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Bondegezou, you have a deeper affinity with PRR than just 'liking their music', judging by the way you advertise their gigs on your blog, and champion the band on chat forums. I can therefore understand that you wish to keep this article. Hopefully, other editors will show greater pragmatism when commenting (if that actually happens)Justpassinby (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a blog. I can't recall mentioning PRR in an online forum for months, but I'm sure I did at some point. I have a website listing forthcoming progressive rock gigs in London that includes PRR shows, yes. As I said, I like the band. Having an interest in the subject of an article is not a conflict of interest. If it was, most of Wikipedia wouldn't exist! Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your point and apologise if you understood that I was implying a conflict of interest as this is not the case. You do, however have an interest in this band that 'colours' your POV so I stand by my previous paragraph. Justpassinby (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What on earth could be so terrible about an encaeclopedia entry on the lead singer and song writer of a famous band, and in what way is he not notable? After reading several long paragraphs of unadulterated rant against this man and his band, (as well as checking for myself his verifiable history of vandalism and sockpuppetry), I'm surprised Justpassinby has the gall to accuse anyone else of being opinionated. Although I have no idea about what lies behind this rather insane grudge, it seems wrong to me that it could be used as an excuse to delete the page of someone who I know a lot of people have an interest in, and who is certainly more notable than many other subjects of wikipedia articles. Although the sources are rough (it is very difficult to find good ones), the content is all definitely true and there is no opinion factor at all.Thedarkfourth (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please read WP:MUSIC. This may clarify things. Also, WP:NOT may help Justpassinby (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete (or merge to PRR). I believe this to be a breach of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT. The content could be easily placed in the PRR article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read both those pages, and so I know that for composers and lyricists, the subject should have "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". Since Courtney has credit for writing the music and lyrics for several notable compositions, there seems to be no problems on these grounds.Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be good if you could expand on this, as this article needs titles of notable compositions, details of their performances and on what grounds they are notable (e.g national radio rotation plays, covers by third parties, royalties, popular appeal etc)WP:BAND. The challenge to this entry still remains the verifiability of all the references as they are all at best tenuous and at worst unreliable, and if you do wish to debate them on an itemised basis I will be quite happy to do so, although I prefer to let other editors come to their own conclusions about this. Justpassinby (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtney's songs have been played across several national radio stations (for example Radio Two and XFM), they have been reviewed in very many national publications, as well as receiving praise from more high-profile supporters (such as Rick Wakeman, of Yes, and Steven Wilson, of Porcupine Tree) and have appeared on national charts, as well as indie ones (one song peaked at #12). I believe this fulfills the demands of notability in WP:MUSIC. If you feel this should be included in the article, please feel free to make the necessary changes.
    As for references, I will attempt to tidy this up, but it will be quite a challenge.Thedarkfourth (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last paragraph sums up my argument; it will be quite a challenge. You are confusing songs written by this subject with performances by Pure Reason Revolution - RW was reviewing a PRR performance. A notable song has several criteria - popularity, public recognition, peer recognition, style etc. The song 'Million Bright Ambassadors'to which you refer anecdotally as 'peaking at #12' (in whose chart?) used plagiarised words, was structurally simple, received no radio airplay and has no mass appeal or recognition. I would therefore argue that it is not notable.Justpassinby (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there are not many sources on the internet about a specific subject does not make that subject unnoteworthy or obsolete. I have managed to find several good references however, and I now believe the only weak one is the myspace link, which I intend to be temporary until I can find a better source. As for the rest of your points, I suggest you do some more research on the subject before you start making comments. The song 'Million Bright Ambassadors' does not exist, and even if you meant 'The Bright Ambassadors of Morning', you are still wrong in assuming that that was the song to which I referred (it was actually The Apprentice of the Universe, which peaked at #12 in the indie charts, and no #74 in the national ones). The fact that TBAOM uses one line from another song, and your opinion that it's structurally simple has no bearing on the matter at all. The fact that that this particular song received no airtime is also moot because as a twelve minute song, it would have been very surprising if it had. As far as 'popularity and public obinion' goes, although it is a very subjective term, Courtney has gained an ever growning fan base, especially in Reading and London where he does regular DJ sets, and as for 'peer recognition', he specifically has been recognised by the likes of Steymour Stein (who signed The Rammones and Madonna) and Alan McGee (of Poptones), and his song 'Moving' received significant airtime on Radio 1 after being championed by their DJ Steve Lamacq. All I'm saying is, Courtney isn't some nobody: he has had significant success and popularity; more than enough to merit inclusion under the terms of WP:MUSIC.Thedarkfourth (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this debate hinges on whether or not this subject "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." The facts are:

    1. Has not had a verifiable entry in a national radio or indie hit chart. 2. Has not had any material recorded or performed by anyone but himself. 3. Has not had any composition played in rotation on a national radio channel. 4. Has no mass appeal or recognition. 5. You claim he is popular in Reading and London for his 'DJ sets' but not his compositions 6. The citation re Seymour Stein of Sire records is from a Velocity recordings page which in turn cites Jon Courtney as the source. A Google search of 'Jon Courtney turns up just one page...this one, and the subject does not have his own web presence. 7. You claim 'significant success and popularity', yet this subject has never headlined a tour (a criterion for musicians/bands) nor are his songs performed regularly or frequently.

    I am happy to leave it to a referee too; let me just answer your points (or "facts"): 1. http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=31682 2. This is not required under the terms of WP: MUSIC 3. This too is not required, though as I have pointed out his songs have appeared on national radio many times. 4. Your opinion only: I believe the opposite. 5. He is also popular for compositions, obviously, but recent DJ sets have only increased this: he is far more well known for his work with PRR. 6. I have no idea why you're talking about velocity recordings: they have nothing to do with Stein. If you want a reference to prove this particular point then read the following article from The Independent: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060106/ai_n15995936 7. Again, not required, but since he has not pursued a solo career it would be very surprising if he had headlined a tour: with Pure Reason Revolution he has headlined many. Finally: Reserving wikipedia solely for huge multi-national names would defeat the point of an online encyclopedia, nor is it wikipedia's policy (as is demonstrated by the fact that it does not take much effort to find many articles here with subjects far less notable than Courtney). I would again express my hope that Justpassinby's record on this subject be taken into account in consideration of this article's deletion.Thedarkfourth (talk) 16:47, 12 March 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.
    More