Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clocks (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. Multiple reliable sources (barely) achevied through USAToday and Epsom Guardian. Likely to get more coverage in Feb 07. If they do not, it can always be relisted. Note: Tour is not in and of itself a keep criterion, but one that makes it more likely that multiple reliable sources exist.'''. Avi 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Clocks (band)

 * — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:MUSIC notability guideline, only one local news article, no albums, etc... Thanks/wangi 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed, it appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Come back when the album makes number one. Budgiekiller 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a number one album isn't imperative to adhere to notability guidelines. In my opinion, that was not a helpful comment. Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per WP:MUSIC – I've literally spent about 20 minutes looking for anything other than the BBC article and can't find anything (per WP:RS). Whilst the claim to have signed for Island is notable, it is neither verifiable nor a steadfast gauge of notability. Lots of bands sign for majors only to be dropped. And playing Loughborough Uni in November, but nothing until next month (in the UK again) doesn't even fulfill the criteria in WP:MUSIC concerning national touring. Sorry, if this was Pop Idol, they'd be going home. For now... Bubba HoTep 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to Ambivalent bordering on Weak keep pending tour and album in Feb. Bubba hotep 22:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per item (3): "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources."
 * Gibson Guitars Promo Gig - This means Clocks have endorsements from Gibson, one of the biggest and most respected guitar companies in the world. "Epsom band Clocks are recieving high praise and critical acclaim and we were thoroughly honoured to have the join us as our headliners for the night. Hear excellent track 'That Much Better' and a snippet of our chat with the boys now!"
 * Jan/Feb 2007 Co-Headline Tour with Grace (Other ticketing sources readily available online). This has also been publicised in the NME for the past five or more weeks. (Granted this tour has not yet started, but this is in fact Clocks' second UK tour (the first was in November 2006 and was also well covered in the NME at the time)).
 * Evidence of their first UK tour : "Hailing from Epsom, they four piece have been ticking around since 2000, taking a further two years before making their live debut. Four years later, they hit the tour bus in company with their first single, That Much Better (Island), a chirpy little pop number that, along with the sunny English jaunt of In My Arms, bears witness to such influences as The Beatles, The LAs, Teenage Fan Club and The Kinks. Well worth giving them the time of day."
 * The band are signed to a major record deal with Island Records and are currently recording with producer John Cornfield ]: "John has recently produced and mixed debut albums for MORNING RUNNER (Parlophone), THE MARSHALS (Mercury), BOY KILL BOY (Mercury), WIRE DAISIES (EMI) and is currently working with new Island signing CLOCKS."
 * Biggest selling single of a record shop : "Out now and our second biggest selling single of 2006 after Jamie T. Great first single from this young band putting Epsom on the map. Touches of The Coral and The Kinks on a hard to find 7" only release"
 * Clocks played a support gig for The Feeling in November 2006 at Loughborough University though I can't find an online link for that at this moment in time - although you can see lots of reference to this on the band's MySpace page from fans' comments. Jdwhite 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasons being:
 * Band have already been on one national tour and are going on another major tour in January/February of this year.
 * They are signed to Island Records, owned by Universal Music Group who are arguably the biggest record company in the world.
 * They have already worked with top producer Liam Watson (The White Stripes, Supergrass, Madness) and are currently working with John Cornfield (Razorlight, Supergrass, Muse).
 * Article on the BBC website
 * Their debut single was played frequently on national radio XFM and placed on the Music:Response tasters playlist.
 * Listed on USAtoday.com in 'top songs' of one of their writers Alexffc 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to all of above links and points. As I have said before, they haven't actually released anything yet have they? Yes, they may be signed to Island. Yes, that producer may be working with them at the moment – but the point is, they haven't come out with anything tangible yet. All the links you provide are inconclusive or trivial (i.e. brief mentions, e.g. the BBC website mention). Do you have a link to the XFM playlist? As I say, if I could actually find anything that would equate to WP:V and WP:RS and they had released an album already, it would be a slightly different story. At present, they are an up-and-coming band. They will either attain the heights of notability or disappear without releasing a thing, such is the whim of the music industry. Bubba HoTep 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they have released something. If you would have read the article properly you would have seen that they released their debut single 'That Much Better' on 14th August 2006 and was available in major records shops --Alexffc 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read it, thank you. And I read WP:MUSIC where it says two albums. I personally would have settled for one on island, but I don't make the rules. Bubba HoTep 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept that point. How about the point mentioned above per item (3): "Has gone on a...national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." The band have already gone on one of these reported in many gig listing websites, and plan to go on another major tour of the UK in January/Febuary of this year . Would that warrant the article to be kept?--Alexffc 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that the tour already undergone is a national one. And, again, Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, articles which attest to its future notability are not acceptable. Besides, all the criterion at WP:MUSIC are extra to the central criterion which it must fulfill first. (The bullet-pointed list before the numbered section starts). Bubba HoTep 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you dispute the first tour was a national one? Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete without prejudice to re-creation in a month or two. I would be minded to call to keep if there were reliable sources for some of the claims made. Anyone can put their gigs on a website; a review in a publication such as the NME or a local newspaper (and Birmingham101.com is not a newspaper) would be far more persuasive. Similarly for entry on the Xfm playlist (which may or may not pass muster as rotation on a national station per WP:MUSIC - this is arguably spot plays on a London station.) Complete the tour, get a couple of published reviews, release a major-label single, and come back. Eludium-q36 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have found an article about Clocks published by the Epsom Guardian both in print and online which mentions the headline UK national tour last year (which was extremely similar to the UK national tour Clocks are about to embark on at the end of this month) amongst other things. I do agree with your points but those things are extremely likely to happen in the near future with a tour coming up, songs being recorded and released, and the record company beginning a marketing campaign for the band which would probably include lots of published reviews and articles.--Alexffc 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think people are falling into the trap of thinking that all possible information to verify a claim is available online. It isn't. If you were to go and read through the past few issues of the NME and those around October/November 2006, this debate would be settled immediately. Anyhow, I've found yet another reliable online source which is an interview with John Cornfield, which verifies both the signing to Island and the recording sessions with him (look to the last paragraph of this interview) (as does the link to his profile on his management's website ). Jdwhite 23:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my stance, however, I feel the notability claim is justified from clause (3) of the WP:MUSIC guidelines for touring and that the Island Records signing and John Cornfield sessions are supplimentary (although all-the-more reason to take the touring sources as credible and noteworthy). Jdwhite 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Jdwhite states that there has been non-trivial coverage in the NME. This is a reliable source, so is the Epsom Guardian. Adding details of these works to the article would be a significant help, as the onus of proof is on the person wishing to insert the information. That things are "extremely likely" to happen is insufficient to pass WP:CRYSTAL. Eludium-q36 11:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've just come across this using Google; this is audio from Dermot O'Leary's BBC Radio 2 show from 19 August 2006, playing Clocks' debut single That Much Better in the company of Keane and The Crimea . Jdwhite 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've found audio from the Gibson Guitars Promo Gig which includes a brief profile, short interview with the band and a clip of the single (near the end)--Alexffc 09:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have spent some time collating points from this page and organising the Clocks (band) article, and I have cited references for most. This includes (most relevant to this debate) verifiable sources on the first National UK tour (in November 2006), which is sufficient to fulfil the third criterion of notability for musical ensembles. Also included are verifiable references for the band's signing to Island Records on a major record deal, the second UK tour, the current recording sessions with John Cornfield, together with information on notable gigs and interesting trivia/external links. Jdwhite 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, national tour, major label contract, media reviews in USA Today... i'm utterly stunned this is on afd. Clearly the nominator has never actually read WP:MUSIC and didnt even bother to do a simple google before nominating.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the USA Today blog where it is mentioned in a list (as obscure)? It isn't a review, unless I'm being incredibly stupid, please correct me. :) Bubba hotep 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate over whether the USAToday.com reference is a review or not (which it isn't) is largely academic since the article must surely qualify for inclusion by virtue of national touring at the very least. In any case, I believe 'Obscure' in context on an American journalist's article shouldn't be taken literally; presumably the entries for Dirty Pretty Things and Graham Coxon are included in his definition of 'obscure', as they are not widely known in the US. They are big players in the UK music scene. Jdwhite 21:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm from the UK, first of all. Second of all, you have done some great work to this article, I must admit. Thirdly, I'm still not convinced, but February, when the real tour (alledgedly) starts is not far away by which time the band will be notable beyond a doubt. Fourthly, I am becoming more and more ambivalent towards this article. I wish you luck. :) Bubba hotep 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Bubba hotep =D Jdwhite 22:36, 17 January 2007 (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.