Talk:Plan-It-X Records

Untitled
Vanity, doesn't seem important/famous. No? --Alex S 16:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * But d00d, it's like... "extremely awesome!" We should, like, totally keep it, dawg! "[Our] time won't be wasted!" - Fennec 16:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * (That was a joke, sir. Delete. Fennec 16:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))
 * Of course that's what I thought initially, but then it occured to me that in my self-imposed exile from pop culture I'd never heard of the illustrious and article worthy Plan It X Records. I guess there are drawbacks to isolation from the modern world. Anyways, the lamp is running low on kerosene again, so this is all I can write. Alex S 17:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Lists 7 bands published. What's the threshold? Niteowlneils 17:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The number of bands on their list isn't important - if they're all local no-name bands that sell a handful of records, they're nothing. If it's one band, but their album goes platinum, then the label is important. Average Earthman 17:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "abe froman"--more than 7,500 hits. "This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb" 1400 hits. "Carrie Nations" and "Operation: Cliff Clavin", each 7-800 hits. Where do we draw the line? (of course, the current contents need help, even if kept) Niteowlneils 17:50, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, one of their bands lists about 10 states on their tour this year. Niteowlneils 18:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete . Just because they call it 'extremely awesome', so it sounds like an advert. Never heard of them, but then I'm too old and in the UK so I wouldn't have done anyway. Average Earthman 17:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Change of Vote) Following on from the arguments above below, now it looks more like a proper article than a deranged ad and the bands do seem to show up on the Google radar.Average Earthman 10:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - as-is, it's an unencyclopedic ad. -- Cyrius | (talk)  17:57, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertisement. &#8212;Tkinias 18:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an ad now. Everyking 22:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; gushing seems to have been removed. Smerdis of Tlön 01:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Against Me! is a very well-known band, article is no longer an ad. --Drago9034 02:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it's been cleaned up. MK 04:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Any label that keeps a band called Operation: Cliff Clavin is okay with me. Keep. Jgm 15:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * When this debate came up on DCide, I stated that I would vote to keep if I had found at least one band I had heard of. Looking at the article, I notice one of the bands listed has a blue link -- the article on Against Me! goes back pretty far and has been edited by lots of familiar Wikipedians. Based on the apparent legitimacy of Against Me! as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Plan It X Records stays. Wiwaxia 03:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I knew that there was some sort of modern culture importance to this that I was missing! Anyways, now that I withdraw the nomination, should I delete this VfD page? --Alex S 16:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article could use some work I think. Plan-it-X has released CDs for dozens of bands, most of whom, if not all, have toured the United States and internationally.
 * I worked on it some. It could still use some more help. --Jer 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the split with AM! is the first thing mentioned in PIX's page? It seems to me that their DIY punk ethics, among other things, outweigh that issue on importance. I also feel the statement "some consider the label most notable for.." is completely inaccurate. What PIX should be notable for is its commitments to its artists and DIY ethics. No need to focus on the bad taste in everyones mouth that's old news and irrelevant by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vosentreste (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Source dump
czar 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.villagevoice.com/music/rip-plan-it-x-records-6650782