Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Eason

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, per WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Les Eason

Prod was removed without explanation. A minor indy artist with one independently released album. No major hits, no major media coverage, no reliable third party sources leading me to believe that the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and is largely unverifiable. His claim to fame is his supposedly high PureVolume rating, which is a dubious mark of notability at best. A Google search of his name brings up a forum about him with roughly 10 posts, and a pure volume page. Nothing at Allmusic.com. Wafulz 05:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Counterargument

1) In defense of the artist, the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period. If this is not the desired definition of the rule, the rule should be rewritten or elaborated upon. Furthermore, being that I edited the article with the PureVolume statistics, the statement "His claim to fame" is a subjective and therefore an irrelevant remark. The word "dubious" (above) also suggests subjectivity and should therefore not be considered valuable to the evaluation the argument. If so desired, and if this case were being conducted properly and fairly, the protestor should verify PureVolume statistics by contacting PureVolume, especially before making accusations.

2) It is not a standard practice for Independent artists such as Mr. Eason to submit publications to organizations such as AMG, therefore, AMG (Allmusic.com) is not a reliable tool for scrutinizing credibility. In addition, there is no rule under WP:MUSIC that credits AMG with being the means by which to validate an artist. If this is so desired, a rule should be put in place.

3) The above argument about the google search is misleading. As we all know, google results vary daily depending on hits. The fact that the search "Les Eason" brings back 10 pages (635) of results, and the fact that profile views on the artist's MySpace and PureVolume on October 17 are exceedingly high, it can be assumed that while his forum doesn't necessarily reflect high traffic, it is still a fairly popular page, at least on October 17. It is fairly common for music fans to prefer the artists MySpace over their homepage. Since the artists MySpace was recently updated, it has been cycled to last of the results when searching from google while it would normally be the top search result (as I have personally seen). Such is the case when any MySpace profile is edited. The artist's MySpace suggests a large fan base and boasts a number of posts, contradicting the above beliefs which are simply a result of premature evaluation based on the lack of participation, not traffic, on the Les Eason Forum page. An unfair and incomplete interpretaion. And again, forum activity is not one of the required criteria under WP:MUSIC.

Conclusion:

I understand that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotional or marketing pages, but just the fact that I got on here today and searched "Les Eason" is evidence enough that people are interested in the article. At first I was surprised to see that he had a Wikipedia page, but then I was even more surprised to see the discrepancy since this artist is so well known as an independent musician in Texas. It would be a shame to delete the article and definitely not based on substantial reasoning (contradictory to the given criteria even). If you left the page alone, you would undoubtedly find that numerous people search this artist. I also feel that further arguments should be strictly objective and supported by Wikipedia criteria, not personal opinion.

Lindseypooh 10 01:20, 18 October 2006

— Possible single purpose account: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

— Note to closing admin: Lindseypooh 10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete per nom. Linseypooh, PureVolume is a music community site, not a meter of radio plays. The WP:MUSIC criterion for a "national music chart" means radio plays and music sales, not votes on web sites. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Note that subject appears to have created page with users lindseypooh and 68.105.226.17 contributing. BTW/ I spent 3 weeks in Texas during Aug 2006 on the local pub and club scene and had not heard of him. Encise 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Encise

• Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC at this time, but with luck, who knows. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't care what his purevolume rating is, this guy is still non-notable. And unverifiable. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions

11:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• " the WP:MUSIC rule states: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." PureVolume qualifies under this rule, period." - Oh does it? you might as well use MySpace profile views as an arbiter of notability. Please, Delete --User:amists
• Delete per nom, Dhartung and Ultra-Loser. --Aaron 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Les Eason Hey lindsaypooh10, I appreciate your support and yes, I do you remember you from the Amarillo show. Anyway, I was just board during one of my grad classes yesterday afternoon and thought I would make a wiki page. I read the rules for deletion and knew beforehand that it would be deleted. I was surprised to log on this morning though and see all the debate about it. Just delete the page. It's not a big deal and I agree that PureVolume shouldn't qualify. And if these guys have nothing better to do than to troll inferior pages like mine than and make rediculous comments (with the exception of Dhartung and Aaron) then that is pathetic and it says alot about the wiki community. I had never edited on here because I've never had time, but I did expect to find a more scholarly bunch than this. I do appreciate in some sense the attention the page has received and I would urge all of you to check out my MySpace for some samples. By the way, the Purevolume Stats she posted were wrong anyway. Happy trolling! LES Sometime during the day, 18 October 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.116.189 (talk • contribs)
  • So you created a page knowing it would be deleted, and proceed to tell us that discussing its deletion is stupid and trolling? And now you want us to visit your page? What? --Wafulz 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I very highly doubt that calling dedicated wikipedians "trolls" and their comments "rediculous [sic]" is going to encourage anyone to get onto your myspace page and listen to your samples. You said yourself that you knew this page is going to be deleted, you don't have to make such a big fuss about it. Since you've apparently acquainted yourself with the deletion guidelines, might I reccommend that you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Etiquette as well? Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNon-notable vanity affair of dubious musical origins and going no were, who cares. The Crying Orc 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable for reasons given above, and Mr. Eason is kind of a snot too, per his comment. NawlinWiki 02:47, 19 October 2006 (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.