Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

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 that this is in the wrong venue. This appears to be a content dispute, and you don't need a deletion debate to merge, redirect, or whatever have you. Work it out on the talk pages. Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

{{Prod}} was removed. Non-notablilty and it's lack of existance is the claim. Previous dicussion can be found at Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign. semper fi — Moe 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This probably merits mention in the articles on the related albums, but I don't see how it deserves its own separate article. Merge it somewhere. Bearcat 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that we should Keep it so long as it is expanded upon per some of the comments above. I remember this campaign being a really big deal at the time and am quite certain it had an impact on the release. I think in its current form its full relevance is not well articulated to someone who wasn’t in the scene at the time like I was, or who isn’t completely familiar with the circumstances of the CD release. I think that is the underlying problem, not its importance. I know there’s enough content/knowledge out there to expand the article, so placing a notice up asking for expansion of the content would be the best course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.199 (talk • contribs)

• Delete There is no particular proof that this campaign, among others, had any impact on the release. The difference between this campaign and others concerning The Lillywhite Sessions album, was that it got national attention, mainly in Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly. This national press coverage, although cited, is not enough, I believe to warrant its own article. If there is proof that this one particular campaign had an impact on the end means, which wasn't the release of the unreleased material, but a rerecording of most of those songs, released as Busted Stuff, then maybe it should remain. If not, it should be mentioned that there were campaigns and communication by fans on the articles for The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff. Milchama 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree with that argument, based on the well thought-out response that was posted on the discussion page for the article. First of all, there is no proof of any other campaigns - so the "among others" comment is misleading. I'm pretty sure there weren't any others, perhaps just a generic web petition or two at best. Second of all, the relavance of the article is not based on if it clearly resulted in the release of the CD - that is not the right standard to hold it up to, as other articles of this nature aren't held up to that standard. Yes, the CD was indeed newly minted and fully-produced recordings of the shelved materials .. which was the goal of the campaign... I know, because I was one of the 20,000+ people who signed it and had my feedback delivered directly to RCA. It is 100% clear this campaign a) captured the attention of the press b) received the attention of the producer/band c) had a very high potential for being influential. Just because the band/producer/publicist would not go on the record confirming or denying the campaign's role in the decision to indeed release the CD doesn't make it unworthy. In fact, the very fact that this specific campaign reached them by name makes it notable. I strongly agree with the majority of the comments posted on the talk discussion of the article's page that the article should stay and be expanded upon... this campaign really meant a lot to the fans, and was a grassroots effort that many believe played a big role in the decision. It would be a shame to not expand on this article considering its part in DMB history. See some of the other feedback in Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign 206.188.56.5 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Response It is not clear that the campaign received the attention of the producer/band. Nobody involved with the production of The Lillywhite Sessions or Busted Stuff have acknowledged this one particular campiagn's existence and/or role in the decision made to produce and release Busted Stuff. Please find a citation to prove me wrong. This Nancies.com fansite interview with Busted Stuff producer Steve Harris (http://www.nancies.org/news/2002/10/interview-with-steve-harris/2/) does not confirm, deny or acknowedge that the band knew about this particular Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign, or other pro-Lillywhite fanmail that was unrelated to the campaign. Milchama 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response (Keep) Few things. First, please provide citations for any other notable campaign(s) you stated may have existed/also influenced the situation - based on your prior assertions. Second, it is clear that the campaign recieved the attention of the producer, since the creator and the campaign itself was mentioned/linked in that very Steve Harris interview you reference!!! The citation is right there in the reference via a direct question asked, and arguing the campaign's "lack of existence" is quite silly at this point considering the sources. The email response from Steve Lillywhite regarding the campaign was posted on now-defunct Minarets.net (just as the email responses from Steve Lillywhite to Craig Knapp were posted online which led to the leak; refer to Lillywhite Sessions leak history or the article in Rolling Stone covering this topic if you're unaware of the history). And finally, to your last point, nobody has argued 100% certainty that this campaign led to the release -- the best you'll see are some articles saying that it may have, as many in our community believe it did. What others have argued is that point alone is not grounds for deletion. The correct response would be to say that it is not clear, but that the potential was clearly there due to the large following (20,000+ supporters), delivery of all supporter comments directly to the record company, sizable media exposure of campaign (article in ICE Magazine from few years back is a good one too, look for the print copy for some good quotes regarding the campaign), and the fact that the campaign (and other fans) did indeed get what they wanted since the mission was accomplished - one way or another. Those factors alone, for me, are compelling reasons to keep and expand upon the article as I would with any other article that had similar drivers behind it.
• Response The campaign in that Steve Harris interview was mentioned by the interviewer, not the interviewee. Harris himself did not comment on the campaign. Milchama 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response (Keep) The campaign in the interview, which is the campaign we are discusssing, was indeed mentioned by the interviewer with the added comment "it appears to have worked." And, Steve Harris' response to the question was "I can't answer that" - which was the typical response. However, in his defense, he also commented that the decision was made before he was pulled in; this is all fully congruent with everything that has been stated. Looking forward to your citations/references on any other notable campaigns that supposedly existed and had the potential for influence.

• Keep There were no other campaigns aside from this one. In fact, there were no other movements that had the amount of appeal as this one, if there were any other movements at all (references please??). I am in full agreement with the second post (keep) that the underlying problem is the article needs to better articulate its references/impact because those who are "not in the know" don't realize how big of a deal this was (There's a reason why it was mentioned in so much of the mainstream press as well as why it reached the band). Milchama, while I'm sure your intentions are good - your original reference claim was proved wrong, and based on your comments I strongly feel that your argument is based on some incorrect assumptions/a loose understanding of the events that took place prior to the album release. Its a bit misleading - but I don't think that's your fault, I instead agree that the article needs to be expanded to further convey the influence of the campaign to those who weren't as active in the DMB community at the time. To reiterate some key stats: a) Campaign was quoted in mainstream media (Rolling Stone, MTV [Kurt Loader made a quick mention on MTV News and showed a screenshot of the site], VH1, Entertainment Weekly, E!, and others) b) Camapign was directly referenced by producer and publicist - although of course they had to act as if they can't comment on if it played a role ... they could have said No It Didn't, but they instead dodged the question, which adds more fuel to the fire c) Feedback from 20k campaign signees was delivered directly to RCA Records d) Songs were indeed fully produced and released shortly thereafter, as the campaign intended. e) I, like many others at the time, believe the campaign was successful and played a big part in conveying fans wishes, but I also think it became a big enough deal even if it were to have failed. I'm more than willing to add more content and legitimate references to the article to better explain why this really did matter based on much of what has been said, if that would help others understand the full history. Thanks. 131.107.0.102 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Busted Stuff, then delete. It doesn't need an article by itself but shouldn't be deleted altogether! Bjelleklang - talk 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Question I appreciate your middleground, sounds reasonable in theory. However, in addition to what you stated, I would also propose the possibility that there's enough additional information/background/context/controversy on the campaign and the entire endevaor/uprising that would justify keeping it seperate and expanding upon it. I feel that I, as well as some others who have commented, appear to be knowledgable enough to provide that. It was quite an interesting time!
• Suggestion It was definately an interesting time. Maybe the focus of the article can be changed from this one campaign to the whole controversy surrounding The Lillywhite Sessions and how it led to Busted Stuff. The article could be renamed something like The Lillywhite Sessions Controversy. However, the majority of The Lillywhite article is about the controversy, but that could be moved to this new article. That would allow to to create a better, more definite history of this very interesting time in DMB history. Milchama 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Suggestion That's not a bad idea. However, per previous comments - I think there's enough information sorrounding this campaign to justify another article as well, and I think it was of enough importance as it relates to the subject to be seperate. Also, the Lillywhite Sessions article already is trying to be the article you propose - it just needs some work. I think keeping the reference to the campaign article in the Lillywhite Sessions article, to not make it so campaign-centric, and expanding the Lillywhite Sessions article to cover everything you propose at a higher level would be the best of both worlds! I like that idea, not exactly what you proposed, but best of both worlds getting both accomplished... and its reasonable. When I get some time (soon), I'll start expanding the campaign article to go into some of the nitty gritty details of the time that were important and add some more references - but I will also start expanding The Lillywhite Sessions article to go over all the other aspects of the controvery as you suggested, and clean it up a bit. Thanks for the insight!!

Comment (last two posts): As far as I can see, none of the external references mentioned in the article as it exists now can validate any claims that this campaign had anything to do with the decision to release the album. As the article stands at the moment, it is non-notable, and as such doesn't warrant an article by itself. If more information can be added to the article, confirming that the campaign was notable, and also proving that it actually can be connected somehow to the decision to release the album, then it might deserve an article on it's own. But for now, it isn't really notable, and as such should be referred to in The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff, but little else. If the focus can be changed, that's also fine, but unless the article grows to an unreasonable length, it should still be included in the existing articles regarding the records, and not by having a seperate article. Bjelleklang - talk 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep/Comment Just thought I'd chime in. Keep in mind, that point may never be able to be fully validated - record company wasn't upfront on discussing all the real reasons behind the release, or even shelving... if you look at past media, it was kind of an elusive and evolving story. I think the article can be expanded and include some of the elements you suggest, and make the case as to why it was a notable and influential campaign, because I know for a fact it was (I didn't hand out flyer's in the cold before three shows if I didn't think it was worth it as a fan supporting the campaign) regardless of any other uncertainty. I think that makes more sense then merging as I believe it is notable and improving the article can help communicate that - and so there isn't redundant content in the Dave Matthews Band, Lillywhite Sessions, or Busted Stuff articles -- allowing the details to be explained, but at a reasonable length. I'd be willing to help contribute to this task as well, you have to be a true fan to understand! :-) 24.19.189.5 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a matter of fact, I am a fan of the band, and have a more or less complete collection of their albums! But still, there are other ways of indicating the notability of the campaign, but basically, if this cannot be done, then the article doesn't deserve to be there, and is better off referenced in the articles about the various albums! First of all, find a source that can say something about the scope of the campaign...some has been mentioned in previous posts here, but the article doesn't really reference it in any way! If this had been a subject I didn't have much knowledge of or interest in to start with, I'd say delete due to non-notability. If someone can find sources that prove this to be notable enough, then fine! But if not, it should be referenced in other articles as being unconfirmed, and not in a separate article! Bjelleklang - talk 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I agree with you. I will work over the week or so to cite those sources and add the details you suggest, I feel it can be done. It is great to talk to a fellow fan. I wonder, how popular is the band in Kristiansand or Norway for that matter? Takk :-) 24.19.189.5 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has happened to the article over the last week, and as no mentioned sources say anything about the notability of the campaign, merge it with The Lillywhite Sessions, and then delete! Bjelleklang - talk 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I have been busy due to the American holidays (Thanksgiving) this week. Updates are currently being made as suggested, stay tuned.

Additions & Edits Bjelleklang - Per your comments the following has been done thus far. 1) Additional sources have been added supporting previous assertions further. 2) A screenshot of the campaign, a link to the Archive.org cache of the campaign, as well as a supporting quote directly from the campaign has been added to the article. 3) In terms of scope, the number of campaign members recruited is now also mentioned in the article per prior discussion. This can be cross-referenced with the linked cache of the campaign itself, which -- as previously mentioned -- is now cited. Additionally, there are further external sources that also validate this (in addition to some that already may have been cited), including an article in a state newspaper. However, the newspaper article I'm referring to had a misinterpretation of how the sessions were leaked, thus I'm looking for different sources. What that said, what is listed now and the sources - both external and the campaign itself - is probably already sufficient in that regard. Regardless, I'll keep looking for new additional sources to add to further strengthen the article. 4) The Entertainment Weekly link has been updated to a better formatted version of the article mentioning the campaign. Please look forward to more additions/content updates/sources in the coming days and/or weeks. Thanks.

Merge with The Lillywhite Sessions In my opinion, the additions do not show the notability of this campaign per Bjelleklang's request. All that was added, besides the cache of the old site, are more articles proving the campaign's existance, but NOTHING proving that RCA, DMB, etc were influenced by the campaign in the decision to record Busted Stuff. Unless that is the case, I would like to see it merged with The Lillywhite Sessions. Milchama 23:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - As Discussed Per discussion above with Bjelleklang and previous comments - showing notability in other forms such as scope of campaign is indeed acceptable. Please see his comment on 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC) regarding discussing scope of the campaign. The edits that were made and will continue to be made are intended to show notability via scope and publicity; they will not be an attempt to prove the campaign caused the release per comments and discussion above. Thanks.

Comment: still, with only 10.000 signatories (or thereabouts), I'd say that the campaign is non-notable. DMB had sold around 20 million copies of pre-Busted Stuff records. As such, I cannot agree that 10.000 signatories makes this campaign notable in any way! Unless a source can be found to prove either a) that this number is a lot higher, or b) that there is a connection between this campaign and the decision to record Busted Stuff, I still say merge with Busted Stuff and delete! Bjelleklang - talk 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Response There were some sources that said it ended up reaching over 20,000 -- but I'm not sure how many signatories would be enough. Considering the nature of the campaign - I'm not sure if comparing it to the number of CDs sold makes sense; I'm not sure what the rule of thumb should be in this case. As for your point B) As previously mentioned, there is speculation by several sources stating that it may have played a role ... but that is a point that will never be proven since the record company won't address all factors that led to their decision on this CD, or any others for that matter (standard practice has been not to comment on such matters in most cases). In that case, what more needs to be added?

Although it doesn't nescessarily have to be compared to the number of CD's sold, that number should have some importance. I'd say that it would have to reach a significantly higher number of signatories than 10-20.000 in order to be notable by this alone. If the connection between Busted Stuff and the campaign cannot be proven, and the number of signatures cannot be proven to be a lot higher, I'd have to say that the subject is at best non-notable and unverifiable, and thus not conforming to Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability. It could still be referenced in Busted Stuff, as well as The Lillywhite Sessions, but in my opinion it is not notable enough to have it's own article. Bjelleklang - talk 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but let me say the following regarding Wiki policy. One, I believe everything stated in the article is verifiable as its all cited in sources. The article does not state that the campaign caused the release of the CD - in fact it states what is known to be the truth and verified by the independent sources linked. I think the topic of notability is the appropriate one, and in which case the Wikipedia policy is as follows:

>>> Notability is not subjective

Notability does not equate to "I've heard of it."/"I've never heard of it." or "I think that it is notable."/"I don't regard it as being notable.". A Wikipedian who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion. None of the notability guidelines contain any such criteria.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. As is the case in other aspects, when it comes to notability Wikipedia is a reflection of what exists in the world. The notability of a subject is judged by the world outside of Wikipedia: a subject is notable if people in the world deem it notable enough to publish non-trivial works about it.

The application of the aforementioned primary notability criterion allows Wikipedian to determine whether the world has judged a subject to be notable. If someone independent of the subject has gone to the effort of creating and publishing a non-trivial published work about it, then that someone clearly deems the subject to be notable. Thus by applying the primary criterion Wikipedians determine whether a subject is notable not by considering whether they themselves think that it is notable. They determine whether a subject is notable by looking for the existence of multiple non-trivial, independently sourced, published works on the subject. <<<

With all of that quoted, I would argue that there are multiple non-trivial mainstream press sources that mention and/or address the campaign. By my objective interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I don't see why this article wouldn't meet that standard. I would also argue the Wikipedia policy does not ask for arbitrary measures of relevance based on metrics such as how many joined the campaign or even if it was successful... but rather, the fact that several independent non-trivial sources (Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, etc.) deemed it important enough to mention/discuss in articles is the reason why it is notable.

Ask a casual fan about the Lillywhite Sessions, and they may or may not know about it. Ask them about this campaign, and I doubt you'll get an answer. This article still feels like it is a small section of a larger Lillywhite Sessions article. I just did a rewrite last night to incorporate all of the aspects of the album's recording, distribution and its influences behind the decisions to record Everyday and Busted Stuff. I suggest that you take a look at it an incorporate the campaigning aspect to it. Milchama 12:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I consider myself just beyond a casual fan, and I've heard about both. Besides, per the user's comments above quoting Wikipedia policy - notability is not subjective and not to be based on statements such as "feels like," "I think," or any other anecdotal arugments. There are several meaningful sources mentioning the campaign directly, they are indeed independent (and mainstream); this passes standard tests of notability as several others have stated. The objective criterion must be used, not subjective feelings/thoughts of any editors. I suggest linking the article from your well-done rewrite via a brief summary, keeping Wiki objective policy in mind. 131.107.0.71 15:57, 27 November 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.