Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevermen


 * 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   delete. Consensus is that the topic is not notable.  Sandstein  06:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The group does not exist. It has never released any music, and it has no significant or 3rd party references to support a claim of notability. It seems that the group "Nevermen" was an idea of Mike Patton that never got off the ground. Prod tag was removed without comment from an editor who may have a COI with the independent label associated with this non-group. Andy14and16 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Andy14and16 - Over the last month you have nominated Lex Records and almost every page linked from Lex for deletion. This is clearly not a constructive way to use prods. Below, (in bold) I have cut and pasted the explanation I left on the Nevermen talk page yesterday when you nominated Nevermen for deletion for the second or third time. Please check the Nevermen talk page.


 * I think that the explanation below covers your points on notability.


 * As far as the group not existing and being a project that Mike Patton abandoned, that is simply speculation. Please see the references that I added yesterday. The references include interviews in significant media with each member of the band discussing that the group exists and that they have recorded. The Mike Patton interview was dated May 2010, suggesting that it is a current project.


 * I notice that you removed two refs for not mentioning the project. One is an interview from January 2009 with TV On The Radio members in The Guardian (venerable UK national newspaper) which lists other projects they've mentioned their working on. It states "He also formed a "vocalist trio" with Mike Patton and Doseone. " That is worth including because it's an early independent mention in an important newspaper that lists the band members (before a name was even chosen). The other ref you removed was was a lengthy interview on Pitchfork titled 'Doseone Talks Collabs With Tunde and Mike Patton, Alan Moore, More'. It would be hard from the title alone to contend that it wasn't relevant to the Nevermen WP page.


 * '''I have removed the proposed deletion tag by Andy14and16 that read -


 * '''"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Non-notable rock band. Article does not cite reliable and independent sources.Band has not yet released any music. Delete as WP:NOTCRYSTAL"


 * '''The tag was removed after several further references were added to support the fact that the group exists, is notable and that they have recorded.


 * '''The fact that the group exists and are recording together is notable. This is evidenced by extensive coverage in major media sources including The Guardian and Pitchfork.com.


 * '''The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music) 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' state that notability requirements are met if the group "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." All three member of themselves are notable in their own right.


 * '''The forthcoming release of material by the Nevermen is a notable event. The recording of the music for the release is documented in various major media sources. In the WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines it states "Individual... expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." In the case of the forthcoming Nevermen release, preparation is in progress and speculation is well documented. Both preparation and speculation are referenced.

'''


 * I hope that all your points are covered above. If not feel free to discuss. There are plenty of alternatives to deletion. I think it's clearly not appropriate at this stage.In general, I think you should read the Wikipedia:Notability (music), which gives plenty of examples of notability. Every page I have read that you have marked for notability fits the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoleum (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources referenced above and in the article feature the artists themselves seemingly speculating about the band. If the band itself is speculating about the existence of the band, I think it's safe to say that this is, you know, speculative. Delete until there's solid evidence that the band exists beyond merely being a great idea for a supergroup. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment All three members are quoted in saying in separate interviews that the band exists and has recorded. Is it 'speculation' of existence if the members of the group are talking about it existing and having recorded? 'Speculation' implies a theory. Three independent first hand witnesses talking about their own work surely means that the group exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexoleum (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They talk about jamming together, yes, and one of them uses the phrase "the Nevermen." There's speculation about having an album out, at some point, maybe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There isn't even an Allmusic entry. So it's an encyclopaedia article about a theoretical group? WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Savonneux (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a difference between 'theoretical' and things you haven't personally encountered. You probably haven't heard any of the bands work but that doesn't mean that it is merely a theory. In this case, the three band members attest that there is a band and that they have recorded and it's been reported through the media... Notable bands do not all have Allmusic pages - for example Atoms For Peace do not have an Allmusic page - ... The notability claim has clearly been rebuffed and that leaves the question of whether the band members, in interviews as recent as this month, are 'speculating' about the existence of a band and their work or whether they mean what they say... It doesn't make a huge difference if this is deleted now and re-instated in line with a release date of material, or merged with another artists page, or put into incubation Lexoleum (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Savonneux (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not supporting an argument by saying such-and-such a band has a WP entry and therefore this band must. I'm saying that an Allmusic page is not the definition of existence of a band. Maybe re-read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lexoleum (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete unless significant third party material comes to light. The citations provided very little information and most didn't even mention The Nevermen; instead they discuss collaborations between the artists. An alternative to deletion, then, could be to rename the article, perhaps something of the form "musical collaborations between X, Y, and Z".   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Both Doseone and Mike Patton in referenced interviews say that the name of the group is the Nevemen.Lexoleum (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Unfortunately Lexoleum's comments are probably going to end up being "tldr" for most, but he's right about one thing - Andy14and16 seems to believe that Lex Records and all its artists are non-notable, and has been systematically prodding and tagging each one of them for deletion. Many of them have so far been kept. That having been said, this group hasn't yet released any material and may never; when and if we have a confirmed release date, or at least a confirmed body of work, I'd support a separate article. Until then, note of the collaboration can be noted on the artists' pages. Chubbles (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment and all of edits are about that label but this is about the article and most of the references don't even mention this "group." One of the refenerences (wired number 8) looks like i was just pulled randomly off the internet.--Savonneux (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Savonneux, can you explain further what you mean about edits being about the label? Regarding refs: each reference appears at the end of a sentence and is relevant to that particular sentence. So with point 8 appears after the words "on the score for the Alan Moore audiobook 'Unearthing'" and then if you follow the link, it's to a Wired.com article about Stuart Braithwaite from Mogwai corroborating that Patton and Doseone are working together on the score. It reads "Brathwaite and crew join artists including Mike Patton, Godflesh’s Justin Broadrick, Doseone and Fog’s Andrew Broder Moore’s forthcoming multimedia project Unearthing..." That reference is one of three independent sources referencing that particular point. Seems pretty relevant to me. What's the objection? Lexoleum (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment All of your edits have to do with a company called "Lex Records". WP:COI isn't part of AFD though, is all I was saying. Yes it supports the sentence but saying it makes the actual group "Nevermen" notable is more than a stretch, it only supports that particular sentence which is only peripherally related, it would be a good source for "Unearthing," the word I'm going for here is trivial.--Savonneux (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the contributions do relate to Lex. Lexoleum is the user name for Lex Records' edits. The contributions are fact based, they are not contentious and everything is referenced. The reference from Wired.com is clearly not trivial in relation to the sentence or the paragraph to which it is attached. The paragraph is relevant to the group. I really can't see a problem with that reference. I think that both those objections are irrelevant to the discussion here about whether the Nevermen are a group and have recorded. Like I said before, it doesn't make a big difference if the article is put on ice. However, I don't think there is a problem with the facts or the references provided. Lexoleum (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not about whether they are a group or exist. No one is arguing that. It's about whether or not they are notable enough to warrant an entire article. There are very very very few bands/ensembles/groups who have no releases that get an article. Even unreleased albums by highly notable bands usually don't get an article until there is a track listing and a street date. People will get annoyed with this digression though :P if you want to talk about any policy guideline stuff leave me a message on my talk page.--Savonneux (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is specifically about whether they exist. The opening sentence arguing for deletion is "The group does not exist." Then ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb's argument is that they do not exist and are "speculative" and then your argument is that the group is "theoretical"... The group gets a pass based on the notability guidelines, see WP:BAND. This isn't a page about an album, it's a band stub, but it does pass the the simple test at WP:CRYSTALHAMMER that you reference. So, the page may be premature but I don't think the other arguments stand up... And I've only replied to policy guideline points that you have raised in arguments for deletion. I haven't engaged in a deletion discussion before - is it a bad thing to answer arguments on policy? Lexoleum (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify my above point, I meant to indicate that the band members' speculation is with regard to the band's status as a going, notable concern, not its existence. I can easily see how that was unclear! Clearly, something exists here. I would posit that their status as a going, notable concern is what is "theoretical." It's purely speculative. If Bono and the Edge were quoted in an interview saying "well hey there, we're cutting some awesome tracks for a new act we have called The Alwayswomen, it'll be great!" it doesn't automatically confer notability on a Wikipedia topic called "The Alwayswomen." They're speculating. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I assume that you used the word 'speculation' because I had used it, not because it fitted. It's not a good fit. In the interview with Patton (ref # 3) he states that Nevermen is the next project he plans to finish and it will be wrapped up this year. Ergo, it's a going concern :) Lexoleum (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in reliable sources. What I see are passing mentions and speculations.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's an article on Pitchfork about it with 1.5K words just on the Nevermen, in addition to brief supporting coverage in other media, including confirmation in interviews from every member. Unless there is an unwritten guideline that there must be a release by a group before a notable group gets a page, I think it's a keep... 'Speculation' in this context means conjecture without evidence, or a guess - it doesn't fit :) Lexoleum (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unless I read a different article, the pitchfork interview was not "just on the Nevermen." There was a couple of questions about that, and it as on to other things. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is 4.5K words long. Around 1.5K words are on the Nevermen. The article is titled 'Doseone Talks Collabs With Tunde and Mike Patton, Alan Moore, More'. Lexoleum (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Sorry. I parsed your statement as saying that the article was 1.5k in size and was about solely about Nevermen.  However, that doesn't change my stance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to be clear, you now agree that there is a significant piece of coverage from a reliable souce? And you are sticking with the same stance, that "Notability is established with significant coverage in reliable sources." Does that mean you are saying 'delete' or 'keep'? Lexoleum (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - No. I do not agree that answering a couple of questions represents a significant pieve of coverage.  It's more than a passing mention, and certainly is much better than the other references, but it still falls short of what would be enough to convince me that this meets notability. Thus my stance remaining unchanged. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite lengthy features will normally only publish a few set piece question and answers, the rest of the interview is normally summarized. It's clearly non-trivial coverage. Lexoleum (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - I agree it is non-trivial. But this isn't  a case of black or white.  Two answers out of an interview falls short of the coverage I would need to see to establish a band that hasn't produced anything yet.  When considering the nature, and amount of coverage, this simply isn't enough for me.  Other editors may feel different, and will state so themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep  I'll add another keep in on the grounds that almost everyone who expressed that the group 'doesn't exist' seems to have moved away from that position. At WP:BAND, at point 6, it states that notability can be established if the group contains two or more independently notable musicians. This group does. Lexoleum (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I dispute your assertion regarding what other people are thinking. Re-reading this AfD does not in the slightest bit support your asertion that people are "moving away from that position." You have supplied evidence that you think ought to make people move away, but I haven't seen "almost everyone" in this AfD swoop in and change their minds. In fact, all I see is one person responding to your evidence and saying it doesn't change their mind. And you can count me as a second person explicitly stating that his mind is unchanged. It has been established that the group exists, removing part of the nominator's concern. But practically nothing has been done to address the rest of the concerns. Your attempt in response to my arguments above to disregard the spirit of my statements and respond to them in only the most literal possible read of my language wasn't exactly persuasive. Yes, technically a band member stating they are actively jamming makes them a "going concern." I note you quoted my phrase "going, notable concern" as "going concern," conveniently missing the word "notable." I still consider everything speculative until they actually produce or do something of note. All we have right now are comments from members of the band saying "yeah, we're totally jamming." Also, WP:BAND doesn't automatically solve an AfD. Please see also my hypothetical comments above regarding Bono and the Edge for why I don't think WP:BAND 6 applies at all in this caes.  ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply My comment was based Savonneux saying that 'no one is saying the group doesn't exist' and you backtracking on the statement that the band's existence was 'speculative'. Out of the three users who said that the band doesn't exist, two of them have subsequently changed their position. Therefore most people have moved away from the position that the band doesn't exist. However, I'm happy to accept that in the light of the facts, and the change of your position, that you hold the same sentiments :) ... Patton in the interview doesn't say "jamming", you are quoting yourself... As far as the nominator's other concerns: that the band has not released music; there are no third party references; and that it was "an idea of Mike Patton that never got off the ground". All those have been addressed above - at length... The Alwayswomen hypothetical wasn't useful to me and I'd be trying to ignore it. The biggest failing of that hypothetical example lies in the idea that people are 'speculating' (or guessing) when they are talking about things that they have done - without evidence to the contrary it would be bizarre to think that are 'speculating' (or guessing) about having recorded music together (are their memories impaired?)... Like I've said before, if there's a precedent for groups of notable individuals not having their own page before a release date is set, then I have no objection. The other arguments so far don't stand up though. Lexoleum (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would fully support userfication of this article. There is some likelihood that it will, at some point, become a notable topic. There has been some e-mail communication between me and Lex regarding this discussion (all very good faith, intelligent stuff) and I've suggested this to him as a solution that might satisfy everyone. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Clearly that's the right approach: the band aren't notable yet, but they may well be in the future and this article would be very useful to have as a basis for expansion. But since it doesn't belong in mainspace at present, userfication is the best way of achieving this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (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.