Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plans and apologies


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plans and apologies
Was tagged as a speedy by Stifle, but asserts an album release, which is a claim of notability. Neutral. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable. KI 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless I am mistaken it is an EP (Extended play) and an album. Regardless of whether it is an album or an EP, I don't think that it meets the criteria WP:MUSIC, because it has not entered the Top 40 or meets any other criteria. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although quite a few relevant Google results for "Plans and Apologies" (including quotes), it's still less than 1000 and hence not enough. They're much further along than most of the bands that show up on AfD, if that's any consolation.   Starry Eyes  23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This was updated since I tagged it, and I agree it's no longer a speedy. However it is still a delete. It does not have the two album releases on major labels required, and while the author claims it meets the criterion of having been prominently featured in a major music publication (my emphasis) (see here), I do not see this as either prominent or major. Additionally, the band members' names on the article do not correspond with the names on the website. Stifle 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the original poster of the article. I would agree that the band are just emerging into 'wikipedia' status so to speak, and are on the border between being notable enough, and not quite. I felt they had a large enough fan base, radio play, and publication reviews to warrant a placing. On reading through the WP:MUSIC criteria, it would seem that 'spot' (ie. one-off) radio plays are not enough. However, the support of Drowned in Sound, I thought, was enough. Perhaps the Wikipedia article on Drowned In Sound could be updated a little. It has continued to grow over the last year, and is now Europe's most widely read music website. It has more readers per week than the NME for instance, and is perhaps the most significant 'tastemaker' within the UK indie community. (I don't think I should be the one to update the entry for it though, as it could look like I was trying to manipulate things in favour of the plans and apologies entry!). I would argue then, that it is both prominent and major for an indie band. No hard feelings if you disagree and delete the entry though, it is reassuring to see that Wikipedia has such stringent entry conditions. PS - confusingly, the band members change their alternative names every year or so, so there are several versions out there! If I knew their actual names, I'd have gone with that... Gus Peterson 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you mention NME, can I ask - have you/they been featured in NME yet? If they have, in what context? Unless NME have gone seriously down hill I'd be surprised if they'd overlooked a notable British indie band. --kingboyk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They haven't been featured in the NME (as far as I know). Would probably be on their press sources on their site if they had, but no mention of the NME. That may change in upcoming weeks with a new single out in March, but for the moment, no NME. Gus Peterson 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying an article in NME is essential of course, but it's a reasonable indicator along with what else is written here that this band aren't quite notable enough yet. Perhaps you should save a copy of the article to your user space and resubmit it in a few months time if they've made a bit more of an impact? --kingboyk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * New Source Looking through your list of notable music publications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_magazines), I see that Careless Talk Costs Lives is on there. The band have received favourable reviews from them in the past. If I put a link / reference up on the entry, would that save it? Or if you just need to see proof, here's a reference to a Plans and Apologies review in Careless Talk Costs Lives on CDBaby.com, which I believe is quite a large online retail store - http://cdbaby.com/cd/plansapologies Gus Peterson 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I appreciate Gus Peterson's efforts, and welcome him to Wikipedia, but I don't think this band is notable enough just yet. --kingboyk 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats no problems, will see how things turn out over next few months, and in the meantime, a delete if thats the right way to go. There are some other bands I was meaning to submit (with a higher profile than Plans and Apologies - should have done them first really!), but will see who things turn out with them in terms of the needed profile for Wikipedia. Gus Peterson 00:24, 6 February 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.