Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chameleon Circuit (band)


 * 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. The band has garnered some coverage and recognition from third-party, reliable published sources and professional blogs such as Billboard magazine, the official Doctor Who magazine, io9, Digital Spy and Wired... Also, the fact that they have had 2 albums released under a well-known indie label, one of which was featured on the Heatseekers chart, makes the band just about qualified under WP:BAND. Improvement on article is still much needed. @pple complain 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Chameleon Circuit (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The claims for notability of this subject appear to stem solely from their recent #23 listing on the Top Heatseekers chart. However, I'm not sure that this alone is enough to justify their notability: the Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS, and I can't find any reliable source that archives it, meaning that it is impossible to verify this claim. The ref given in the article doesn't mention Chameleon Circuit at all, and all other refs are from self-published sources, e.g. YouTube, Dailybooth, and websites from members of the band. The few reliable sources that I could find that mention the band name (such as The Telegraph, Digital Journal, Gazette & Herald and Newsround) seem to be referring to an actual chameleon circuit (i.e. the component in Doctor Who) and don't seem to be about this group. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many starting bands chart on the Heatseekers. The band charted on a national chart, and that is a requirement for notability. As for the fact that it isn't archived, Heatseekers chart is physically published every week, so it is print. Not everything has to be on the internet. Billboard archives their charts after about 6 months I believe. As far as other sources, the band had an article written up about it in the official Doctor Who magazine and David Tennant said positive things about them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm going to find some out-side sources.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found some outside sources; Upon their first release in 2009, the band were covered on well-known sites such as io9 and Den of Geek, the latter writing a full review of the album and interview with the band. Also, the Doctor Who Magazine writer Benjamin Cook, who also interviewed Chameleon Circuit, has posted a copy of the article on his own site. Chameleon Circuit have been notable for a while, it's only now with a new release that the band is evident of being more than just a Charlie McDonnell side-project. --Anglerfish6 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I know precious little about the US's Billboard charts, but, from what I can tell from its article, the Top Heatseekers chart bears a pretty strong resemblance to the UK's Indie Breakers chart, ie. it's quite a minor chart that doesn't get a huge amount of promotion. Does a single week at a very low entry on a very minor chart automatically make an act notable? I'm sure that many starting bands chart on the Heatseekers, but I would doubt that this would immediately establish their notability for a WP article. Besides, like I said in the nom, the Top Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. I'll take your word for it that the charts are achived on the web – what's the URL of the site? Regards, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 23:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The chart is archived on the Billboard site, about 6 months after a new act has charted. I remember Spose had a problem like this when "I'm Awesome" was a Top 40 hit, but it couldn't be verified until after several months. However, the band's peak position was written in print in a copy of Billboard Magazine, and that is still reliable.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * KeepLet's be honest here. This is Wikipedia, therefore it is not super reliable. Rather than arguing whether or not this Trock band (Trock being the genre) deserves its own page is a moot point. Does it really take up that much space on the server? The info on it is reliable enough for those who want it. How about we just keep this page and keep on making sure that people don't write lies about George Washington because we all know there's going to be that kid in middle school who gets all his info the night before the essay is due from Wikipedia. CHAMELEON CIRCUIT STAYS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.73.99 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Anglerfish6's references above clearly satisfy WP:BAND criterion #1, and therefore WP:GNG. gnfnrf (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anglerfish6's references, several additional references added, and the fact the band charted on a Billboard chart. This article clearly satisfies WP:BAND criteria #1 (multiple references), criteria #2 (charted on a music chart), criteria #5 (released albums through famous indie label DFTBA Records, criteria #6 (band is made up of Charlie McDonnell and Alex Day (Musician), noted vloggers), and criteria #7 (founded the "Time Lord Rock" genre)--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure that I buy any of those arguments: what makes Den of Geek a reliable source? I've never heard of io9 – does it contain the editorial oversight and the fact-checking that WP requires of reliable sources (I'm genuinely asking, as I have no idea)? I've listed my thoughts on the Heatseekers chart above – while of course I understand that not all reliable sources are online, it seems to me that we need to be particularly diligent regarding biographies of living people, of which the Chameleon Circuit article would be one. Time Lord Rock and DFTBA Records do not seem to yet be notable in and of themselves, so we can't use them to justify CC's notability. Finally, while McDonnell's notability might have been established, Day's is currently being called into question. Just my thoughts... A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 15:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to learn more about io9, you can always check Wikipedia. It is a professionally edited and highly respected sci-fi and tech blog.  I know less about Den of Geek (and it doesn't get a Wikipedia page), but I believe it to be another professionally edited and written geek blog.  I have no opinion about the chart situation or the personal notability of band members. gnfnrf (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the biographies of living people for the Billboard chart position. Do I have to physically scan the page and upload it to ensure it really happened? It actually charted, was printed in the magazine, and is thus a reliable source. While I realize it's not a reliable source, on many of the band's fan pages, fan blogs, and tumblr all mentioned that the band charted, so there is at least small circumstantial evidence that I'm not just making all of it up just because it hasn't been archived yet.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that they charted, my problem is whether or not their charting on the Top Heatseekers necessarily makes them notable. That being said, if you have that particular issue of Billboard to hand, it might be worth using the Cite journal template and including as many parameters as you can find. For instance, what's the issue number of that particular edition of Billboard? On which date was it published? Who edited that issue? On which page did the Heatseekers chart appear? Does Billboard have a chart consultant? If WP is to be believed, Billboard's ISSN is 0006-2510 and its OCLC number is 1532948. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 13:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since other editors have (clearly in good faith) questioned the sufficiency of Anglerfish6's sources to establish notability, I looked for some more. I found further sources at Wired magazine's website and Digital Spy.  Yes, all these sources are "bloggy", but none of them are self-published blogs, which is what I always understood to be the problem with using blogs as reliable sources, per WP:BLOGS. gnfnrf (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you've hit upon my problem with the current sourcing in this article. As you say, they're all rather "bloggy", and some of them have a style of writing that seems a little too "chatty" for my liking. To me, it just doesn't seem entirely appropriate to source such definitive statements about the band with such sources. Then again, maybe other editors will disagree with me – I guess that that's the purpose of this discussion. Regards, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where the worry is coming from, but both Wired and Digital Spy have editors and the like, so they should be reliable. I found this in the Biographies of Living Persons, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Both Wired and Digital Spy fall under this category, so they should be OK to use.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom, there are only, what, two sources that are reliable? not enough for GNG. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's closer to three reliable sources rather than just two, but I see your point. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm counting five: DigitalSpy.com, i09, and Den of Geeks are all professionally edited "blogs" that are allowed per Biographies of a living person. Doctor Who Magazine is an edited, in print, third-party publication. And Billboard Magazine is obviously a reliable source.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2011 (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.