Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music to Raise the Dead (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Raise the Dead[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restarting debate. Last debate was open 4 weeks with nothing resembling a consensus. Argument is that the album was "hard to find" and "considered" influential, both of which are subjective and weaselly. I can't find a concrete establishment of notability — it's entirely possible for a band to release a non-notable album that just didn't get any attention. I am completely unconvinced by the keep arguments in the last AFD, which were mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LOSE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only have the subjective, weaselly argument. I will try to find a concrete establishment of notability. I am completely unconvinced of neutrality by the nominator. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Against my better political judgment I'm going to wade into this tarpit. For what it's worth I was previously unfamiliar with the band and the cassette, and wasn't involved in the prior debates. There are a number of separate reasons why I think this should be kept:

The pop culture notability guidelines are written with the recent past in mind. Due to the evolution of recording technology, it has been possible to release album-length studio cassettes cheaply since about 1980 or so (by and large because of the introduction of the Portastudio and similar products). In 1974, to release an album length studio cassette required a substantial investment of time and money, making such releases inherently more notable than they are today. The production of the cover artwork alone would have cost more than the total production costs most young bands now incur for a CD. As such, I believe that a degree of forbearance is called for.
To the extent that WP:MUSIC applies, the standards for released material should govern, not those for demos or unreleased material. By the standards of the era (1974), a full-length studio recording with album art would be considered a release, even if distribution had been relatively limited. A demo (something put together as a promotional tool to book live gigs, in the early 1970s, would typically have no artwork, and would either be a live recording or one or two studio tracks.
The fact that the album and the band are still of popular interest after 35 years creates a presumption in favor of notability.
While I acknowledge that notability is not inherited, I believe that a certain amount of weight should be given to the problems in article structure posed for Resurrection Band should a decision be made to delete one or two articles on early albums while keeping articles covering the later albums where notability is not in doubt. Doing so would mean that the early albums would have full coverage in the Resurrection Band article itself while the more notable, later albums would have only a summary and a link, hardly an outcome we would want.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of your filibustering is based in policy. You're saying we should consider it notable because it's not "new". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you believe I'm engaging in debate merely to waste time as I wrote the words above in a sincere attempt to help the project. I don't believe that my reasoning can be accurately condensed to "notable because it's not new."

I believe that WP:MUSIC has many shortcomings and don't see it as the last word. WP:MUSIC was created to address the very real problem of proliferation of articles on ephemeral bands for which there are no useful sources. Such articles are usually promotional in nature and are conflict magnets, and something had to be done. But the criteria don't always make sense for bands from another era -- would we delete articles on Tiny Hill's recordings just because we can't find online sources confirming their individual notability? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're bringing WP:WAX. Screw Tiny Hill, we're not talking about him now. We're talking about these two albums. Tell me what makes them notable besides "well, they MIGHT be, let's give them the benefit of the doubt". The source is most certainly vague as it says that the album "may be" two different things. Do you really think that's enough to base an article on?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Music to Raise the Dead to Resurrection Band. Starting with the Music to Raise the Dead cassette and looking at the article's current pair of references: (1) I'm not familiar with Firestream; what makes it a reliable source, and where is the review? I'm getting a 404 page. (2) I'm not finding any mention for this recording in the Powell book, at least not using Google Books. As for other sources, the best I could find are passing mentions here and here. All Your Life has similar issues with the current references in its article. It appears that these recordings, while performed by an indisputably significant band, were promotional limited-edition releases and are not really part of the band's discography (meaning that sources identify Awaiting Your Reply as the band's debut album). If my understanding of these earlier recordings is correct, then I would sort of liken them to, as an example, Manic Hedgehog, a pre-Radiohead demo recording. Demos and promotional/limited-edition releases are not the same thing, but both of these cases involve recordings done prior to the bands' proper debuts, and neither looks to have significant coverage in reliable sources, thus not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. I prefer to redirect (rather than delete) Music to Raise the Dead for two reasons: (1) multiple sources mention it as the band's slogan, and (2) it's a reasonable search term. Regarding All Your Life, I would delete it and move All Your Life (song) in its place, perhaps with a hatnote directing readers to the Resurrection Band article. Of course, if it can be demonstrated that significant coverage exists in reliable sources for these albums, I'll happily change my !vote to keep. Gongshow ^Talk 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and speedy close - immediately re-opening the AfD after the last one closed smells of WP:POINTyness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Above Argument by The Uninvited Co. Inc., and I personally beleive this can be salvaged as enough accurate information is given. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2011 (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.