Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuff Monks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tuff Monks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Very short lived group. Less than two links to this stub. Released only one single on indie label, which did not chart, before band folded. Whether this is enough here for it's own seperate article, let alone a stub is questionable NorthShoreJames (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while they do technically pass WP:MUSIC#C6, and it is true that they exist, [1], I can find no reliable, third party sources to establish any sort of notability. No WP:RS means therefore nothing to merge, and redirect not possible due to the sheer numbers of members involved. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marked for Speedy Delete A7. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: has allmusic.com entry but it's completely blank of any information bar the name of the single (which appears to be two sides of the same song), no longer in print. No indication of any chart activity on ARIA. JamesBurns (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It took me thirty seconds to find four reliable book sources. I have added substantial material, all cited. Checking Google books should be added to your collective repertoires:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a short lived band that released one indie single that bombed. TheClashFan (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even a band. It appears to be a project to use up remaining booked studio time from another artist ie. it lasted less than aweek. Even members of this project were unaware the single was ever going to be released. JamesBurns (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. That's exactly what I have verified through citation to a reliable independent secondary source significantly treating the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err no you didn't. You claim in the article that it's a band. I would disagree on that account since it never actually got out of the studio to tour, promote, or perform. JamesBurns (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. Couch the nature of the project, its transitory and ephemeral makeup however you want. The point is that whatever it is, I was able to find independent, reliable, secondary sources substantively treating the subject to add detail and I barely looked, which usually means there's more out there. That meets Wikipedia's general notability standard, which standard is the bulwark of every one of the subject-specific notability pages as well. If we look at WP:MUSIC we see that the standard is stated as
"A musician or ensemble... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria 1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."(there is no need to look at the secondary basis duffbeerforme cites below, needed only where the primary standard is in question). Certainly this is not the most notable subject imaginable (to use notability in the vernacular sense, which we long ago departed from for our use here), but it does meet our standards for inclusion. I am fairly uninterested in the subject; I was just passing by doing newpages patrol when I came across the invalid speedy tag and declined, but I bet I could source this further If I had a mind to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Some nice sophistry there, however notability is handled on a case by case basis - because X might be notable does not mean Y is automatically notable. Expanding this article would be like wringing water from a dry sponge - we're talking here a discography of one single (of one song twice) from a group that lasted as long as the remaining booked studio session. I still believe there is not enough justification for having it kept. JamesBurns (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do analyze on a case-by-case basis. That is not a mandate to ignore the express language of guidelines. As for the second part of that sentence, it's a strawman statement. I invoked no WP:WAX-like argument to which you appear to be responding. As for dry sponges, I agree that in many cases a single from a very short-lived band with only one reliable source substantively treating it is not sure or likely to have more for expansion purposes. Here we have Nick Cave, The Birthday Party, the Go-Betweens involved—not quite the Beatles and Pink Floyd collaborating for one single, but we are still talking about superstars whose every peppercorn is enshrined. With that context. I am sure there's more out there and, lo and behold, see User:The-Pope's post below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not a notable topic, even in those publications. Many people outside of Australia wouldn't know who The Birthday Party or the Go-Betweens were, so calling them superstars is a stretch. Wikipedia is not an Australia-only encyclopaedia. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the subject is notable or not is what we're here debating; baldly stating they're not just begs the question. Do you really want to argue the exact level of fame involved? Superstar may be hyperbolic for some of them, probably not for Nick Cave, but changing the sentence to read quite famous does no damage to the actual point. By the way, I've never been to Australia though I hear it's nice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD is on Tuff Monks not Nick Cave. I'm not commenting on the Nick Cave article or the others, those articles are not up for AfD. This article is, and being a single studio session, with no tours, and one non-notable single, whichever spin whoever places on it, is simply not notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're way far afield and have lost the thread, completely misconstruing my post. I'll recapitulate. I made a point about that where you find one reliable source, you often find more; I then agreed with you in a sense, stating that a one off single, coupled with only a single reliable source, might not imply that there are more sources to be found but that in the context here, where great fame of the associated persons is involved and thus figures who garner much interest, the sources for a lowly side project probably are out there; you then quibbled about the use of superstar; and I pointed out that that was beside the point, but that changing the wording meant little— that the relative degree of fame was off topic. You have now apparenlty interpreted that to be a WP:INHERITED argument, when that has nothing to do with what I was saying.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has gone from being an AfD about Tuff Monks to a discussion on what was said. I'm not going to bite into this other than stating what I've already said in my previous post. And for the record I am a Nick Cave fan but I don't believe everything he does is necessarily notable - case in point, the Tuff Monks article, which is a footnote in his history and not notable. That's all I have to say further on this matter. Have a nice day everyone. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote in history that has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject. The basic requirement of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant? It doesn't even have an allmusic.com description bar a note on the single. Two books.. half pages.. I would say that's not significant. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "I'm not commenting on the Nick Cave article or the others" after you said "Many people outside of Australia wouldn't know who The Birthday Party or the Go-Betweens were, so calling them superstars is a stretch" Which is it? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both. Note the first comment I'm referring to the wikipedia articles, the second is the artists in general. Next time please sign your post and stick to the topic at hand - this is an AfD on Tuff Monks. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for the lacking signature. I made multiple comments in different places at once and only signed in one spot. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both. Note the first comment I'm referring to the wikipedia articles, the second is the artists in general. Next time please sign your post and stick to the topic at hand - this is an AfD on Tuff Monks. JamesBurns (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote in history that has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject. The basic requirement of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has gone from being an AfD about Tuff Monks to a discussion on what was said. I'm not going to bite into this other than stating what I've already said in my previous post. And for the record I am a Nick Cave fan but I don't believe everything he does is necessarily notable - case in point, the Tuff Monks article, which is a footnote in his history and not notable. That's all I have to say further on this matter. Have a nice day everyone. JamesBurns (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're way far afield and have lost the thread, completely misconstruing my post. I'll recapitulate. I made a point about that where you find one reliable source, you often find more; I then agreed with you in a sense, stating that a one off single, coupled with only a single reliable source, might not imply that there are more sources to be found but that in the context here, where great fame of the associated persons is involved and thus figures who garner much interest, the sources for a lowly side project probably are out there; you then quibbled about the use of superstar; and I pointed out that that was beside the point, but that changing the wording meant little— that the relative degree of fame was off topic. You have now apparenlty interpreted that to be a WP:INHERITED argument, when that has nothing to do with what I was saying.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD is on Tuff Monks not Nick Cave. I'm not commenting on the Nick Cave article or the others, those articles are not up for AfD. This article is, and being a single studio session, with no tours, and one non-notable single, whichever spin whoever places on it, is simply not notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the subject is notable or not is what we're here debating; baldly stating they're not just begs the question. Do you really want to argue the exact level of fame involved? Superstar may be hyperbolic for some of them, probably not for Nick Cave, but changing the sentence to read quite famous does no damage to the actual point. By the way, I've never been to Australia though I hear it's nice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not a notable topic, even in those publications. Many people outside of Australia wouldn't know who The Birthday Party or the Go-Betweens were, so calling them superstars is a stretch. Wikipedia is not an Australia-only encyclopaedia. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do analyze on a case-by-case basis. That is not a mandate to ignore the express language of guidelines. As for the second part of that sentence, it's a strawman statement. I invoked no WP:WAX-like argument to which you appear to be responding. As for dry sponges, I agree that in many cases a single from a very short-lived band with only one reliable source substantively treating it is not sure or likely to have more for expansion purposes. Here we have Nick Cave, The Birthday Party, the Go-Betweens involved—not quite the Beatles and Pink Floyd collaborating for one single, but we are still talking about superstars whose every peppercorn is enshrined. With that context. I am sure there's more out there and, lo and behold, see User:The-Pope's post below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- N.B.:"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." - name me one book in which Tuff Monks is the main subject of discussion. All the sources (two, with one only making a one sentence entry) you list make only passing mention of the project. Also it states "whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself" - just how is it an "independent from the source" when Nichols has simply quoted what the members told him? JamesBurns (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant treatment is not limited to being the exclusive subject of a book (talk about sophistry). It is the counterpoint to trivial/passing mention. The book pages I cite treat the subject in detail. As for secondary sources, they synthesize, interpret, analyze, etc. primary source material, by definition. And stating that the book only quotes what the members told the author is simply factually incorrect, as anyone can check for themselves. Independence excludes works produced by the subject themselves. The interest secondary sources take in primary source material by quoting it, presenting it, interpreting it, etc. shows that the world at large has taken note; independence does not mean secondary sources live in a cave getting their material from watching the shadows on the wall.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the author Nichols didn't interpret what was said, he simply reprinted what was said to him in quotes. That's not interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd counter that you're making that up out of whole cloth; that neither you nor I have a clue as to how much analysis, interpretation, judgement and synthesis went into the multiple facts listed in the page which aren't included in any of the quotes on the page; and that the point is irrelevant anyway because a secondary source providing quotations is still a secondary source and still independent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that it's whole cloth. The book clearly indicates quotes, used in the article, not Nichols interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The book clearly indicate quotes. The book also has significant mention that is clearly not quotes. If there is no analysis, interpretation, judgement or synthesis were do these non quotes sections come from? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that it's whole cloth. The book clearly indicates quotes, used in the article, not Nichols interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd counter that you're making that up out of whole cloth; that neither you nor I have a clue as to how much analysis, interpretation, judgement and synthesis went into the multiple facts listed in the page which aren't included in any of the quotes on the page; and that the point is irrelevant anyway because a secondary source providing quotations is still a secondary source and still independent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the author Nichols didn't interpret what was said, he simply reprinted what was said to him in quotes. That's not interpretation. JamesBurns (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant treatment is not limited to being the exclusive subject of a book (talk about sophistry). It is the counterpoint to trivial/passing mention. The book pages I cite treat the subject in detail. As for secondary sources, they synthesize, interpret, analyze, etc. primary source material, by definition. And stating that the book only quotes what the members told the author is simply factually incorrect, as anyone can check for themselves. Independence excludes works produced by the subject themselves. The interest secondary sources take in primary source material by quoting it, presenting it, interpreting it, etc. shows that the world at large has taken note; independence does not mean secondary sources live in a cave getting their material from watching the shadows on the wall.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some nice sophistry there, however notability is handled on a case by case basis - because X might be notable does not mean Y is automatically notable. Expanding this article would be like wringing water from a dry sponge - we're talking here a discography of one single (of one song twice) from a group that lasted as long as the remaining booked studio session. I still believe there is not enough justification for having it kept. JamesBurns (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. Couch the nature of the project, its transitory and ephemeral makeup however you want. The point is that whatever it is, I was able to find independent, reliable, secondary sources substantively treating the subject to add detail and I barely looked, which usually means there's more out there. That meets Wikipedia's general notability standard, which standard is the bulwark of every one of the subject-specific notability pages as well. If we look at WP:MUSIC we see that the standard is stated as
- Err no you didn't. You claim in the article that it's a band. I would disagree on that account since it never actually got out of the studio to tour, promote, or perform. JamesBurns (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. That's exactly what I have verified through citation to a reliable independent secondary source significantly treating the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not even a band. It appears to be a project to use up remaining booked studio time from another artist ie. it lasted less than aweek. Even members of this project were unaware the single was ever going to be released. JamesBurns (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSIC#C6 and people and bands involved are VERY notable. A redirect to any only of these people would be inappropriate and you can't redirect it to all. While at least one member claims to have been unaware of the upcoming release, at least one was reported to have been aware and may have suggested the name for the band, coined by his girlfriend. Both bands involved included at least one of these tracks of their cd reissues of Drunk On The Pope's Blood [2] and Send Me A Lullaby [3]. User:Fuhghettaboutit has added reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." - Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. JamesBurns (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some are. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some are but not this one. We're talking here an assembly of musicians whose entire life span for the one-off project was the remaining hours left over of studio time, from another artist's session, recording a single which didn't chart. JamesBurns (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some are. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: agree with User:Esradekan. Appears to be nothing more than a studio session with only one non-notable song recorded. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: has half a page on it (p317) in Ian Johnston's book Bad Seed. (Will add to the article later tonight). Notable musicians, notable record label, it's worth more than the options of duplication into both the side-projects section of both the Birthday Party and Go-Between articles or a redirect to 'flip a coin' one or the other. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While I can understand some of the arguments for deletion, my personal feeling is that WP:MUSIC#1 is met here. sparkl!sm hey! 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Coverage means it meets the primary notability guideline. It makes sense to have this article in one place, and cover the single released by them, rather than duplicating the content across several articles. the wub "?!" 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Short-lived collaborations of famous musicians can be interesting, informative and notable, such as A Toot and a Snore in '74. WWGB (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's nothing more than a one-off session with a non-charting non-notable song. Only passing less-than-a-page mentions in only two books. Iam (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - inclined to agree with most of the above. Non-notable session. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what are you people thinking? This is a one off unnotable recording. It seems some people have got their love of their bands in the way of logic. ZhaoHong (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You can read what we were thinking - it is what we wrote down. But what are you thinking not assuming good faith about other editors - please stick to the topic and not (even mildly) attack other editors. Back on topic I have also found that the NME think it's important enough to warrant a line (but not the correct spelling!) in their brief profile of the Birthday Party. And ZhaoHong - this isn't just (or even) about the "unnotable recording" - it's about the band that made it and how it was released. It's a clear match of criteria C6 of WP:BAND - it contains notable musicians. The note that normally early or side projects should be redirected is unable to be done sensibly here, as you can't redirect to both of the contributing bands, and neither band was the lead contributor. Hence there is no need to worry about whether it charted (I'm not going to pay $83 to [4]) or if it meets any of the other criteria. The-Pope (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.