Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent Provocateur (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 no consensus. North America1000 00:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Agent Provocateur (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm unsure that this band meet our criteria at WP:NMUSIC. The only single with a chart listing missed the Top 40, so that wouldn't count, and their album doesn't appear to have done much either. Unusually, all of their members have articles (one or two, like John Gosling (Psychic TV musician) and Danny Saber, could be borderline notability themselves) but I'm not sure that the band itself qualifies. Certainly we need more sources. As nominator I'm happy to be swung to a keep if it can be demonstrated which criteria they meet. KaisaL (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree, the band members are mostly more notable themselves than this "supergroup" – Gosling has had a couple of UK chart hits under his alias Mekon (bizarrely, neither of them are mentioned in his article), and Saber was a key member of a band who had a UK no. 1 album (It's Great When You're Straight... Yeah)... I know that this in itself doesn't make him worthy of an article, but his extensive work with other musicians should produce enough material for a decent article for him. But I don't think Agent Provocateur will have enough articles, even in 1990s print magazines, to be able to construct a good article about the band itself. Richard3120 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As well as the several notable members, they had a hit single, had one of their tracks included in the soundtrack of a Steven Soderbergh film, and received enough coverage to have a well-enough sourced article:, , , , , , . I see no reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to pick up on one point here, what is the hit single you speak of? In the UK a hit single would be in the top 40 and the only one on the article reached number 49, which excludes it from being used to meet that criteria of the guidelines. Quite a number of the links you've provided focus on Matthew Ashman (e.g. his obituary) and happen to mention the band; I don't think his notability is under dispute but there's certainly a case that this particularly band, in themselves, were not. I don't feel particularly strongly on the issue so I don't really intend to debate it too thoroughly, but an observation. KaisaL (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no one definition of 'hit single'. Radio and TV focused on the top 40, while the chart that was published and sent to record shops was all about the top 75. Either way, a placing at no. 49 is a significant achievement. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The chart technically goes down to 200, but I've never considered beyond 40 to count in the United Kingdom. I really don't think "hit" can be attached to something that in the 1990s was confined to an industry list, certainly bands were always spoken of as having their first hit when they hit the top 40. I acknowledge it's close enough to show some leeway. KaisaL (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. As per chart entry. Much of the material around this band appears to do with Ashman's death, the article should expand on that. Karst (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I've been watching and waiting to comment especially now that no one else has; frankly, the article is still overall thin in that there's still not a lot actually convincing. With this, and nothing else being close to substantially better, delete is best. SwisterTwister   talk  04:46, 18 July 2016 (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.