Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritual Tension

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. The accurate summary of the discussion is probably that the users do not agree on whether the available coverage is sufficient, with the majority on the keep side--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Tension[edit]

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

PROD removed from creator of page. Non-notable band that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, nothing on commons, some Google hits (amazon, last.fm, discogs, if the latter passes WP:42). –Be..anyone 💩 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to the reception section, the band has been reviewed by the New York Times, Spin, Melodymaker and others meaning WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the Reception section is entirely unsourced. The only quotation that can be verified is from the New York Times. Below is a list of "receptions" and links to the articles that I could find.

Spin (no source): “Then there are the bands who aren’t part of any movement. They are the leading edge of the underground... Ritual Tension make noncommercial music outside of even punk’ s accepted norms. It takes some listening to figure out how to hear their sound.”
Melody Maker (no source): "This is music at the end of its tether, trapped, bored, dangerous... Magnificent."
Reflex (no source & ambitious): "All three records are indispensable. This is modern without training wheels.”
New York Times: "The rhythm section is fluid but packs a punch, and Andrew Nahem’s guitar work is distinctive and full of energy.”
Away From the Pulsebeat (no source & ambiguous): "Odd that shallow folk think of them as a ‘noise’ band, considering the razortight precision of the rhythm team... Just lovely."
Trouser Press ~~(unreliable source)~~: "Recorded in 1988, the excellently self-produced Expelled is the finest display yet of the band's offbeat musicianship. The dissonance is so vibrantly arranged and performed that it actually becomes catchy.”

Is coverage in one New York Times article satisfy notability requirements? Meatsgains (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have doublechecked and you're right about the sources, which is odd considering the reception section, but are you sure Trouser Press is an unreliable source, as its not on the musicprojects list of unreliable sources [1] ? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I may have jumped the gun in assuming Trouser Press is an unreliable source. I initially went to their website's home page, which claims it "began with the contents of all five Trouser Press Record Guides, those highly opinionated review books of alternative rock. Thanks to many fine contributors, the site now includes loads of new and updated entries." There is no indication of any fact-checking, editors, etc. Doesn't seem reliable enough. What do you think? Meatsgains (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have just enough verified coverage for GNG. With more from the rception section being verified and accurate it's fairly reasonable to believe the others could be too with access to physical publications.

The Trouser Press has had multiple incarnations, some more reliable han others. This particluar entry seem to have been included in The Trouser Press Record Guide [2], [3]. It's published by Collier Books which appears to be a reputable publisher [4]. So a reliable source.

Here is the Spin ref [5].

Don't nkow much about this book Emissões noturnas: cadernos radiofónicos de FM. Any good?

This [6] has a review of a 12".

Here is some more. [7]. Don't know how reliable, same may come from properly published books, some might be just his website. see Piero Scaruffi and [8]. This one may have been in the book The History of Rock Music duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I posted on WP:RSN to gather other users' input on whether or not Trowser Press is a reliable source. I have also stricken out my comments above noting it is "unreliable" for the time being. Meatsgains (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Trowser Press is reliable. [9] Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that as its useful to know. I'm very, very far from being an expert on RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note now that I have made many improvements to the article since it was proposed for deletion. These include: updating and providing verification of sources of critical appreciation (and please note that there was much good press, especially in Europe, that can’t be cited because it is not online); I added an infobox, as well as two graphics; I bolstered the external references; I cleaned up any of the comments that seemed whimsical (such as in the bios), making the article more factual in tone; I added the page to categories. I hope you find these improvements sufficient to a have the considered for deletion tag removed. I would add with regard to the significance of the band, that three full LP/CD’s are in circulation, as well as one EP; that they were at the level of playing Saturday night headliners in Manhattan clubs such as CBGB and The Knitting Factory for years; and that according to my communication with band members, they are collaborating again, and making plans to release new music in the near future (noted in the singer’s biographical details). If there are any other improvements that you might suggest, I am certainly receptive. I do plan to contact other similar bands who have pages on Wikipedia to link to this page, but after the deletion tag is removed. Thank you for your consideration. Bettina F. Rage (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits as they did improve the overall quality however, the reason I put this page up for deletion in the first place is based solely on the lack of independent reliable sources. Most of the information currently included on the page is unverifiable. For example, the entire History section, which is the bulk of the page, only includes one reference. The AfD discussion will close in the next week or so. In the meantime, I suggest going through the sources Duffbeerforme noted above and including any that would be relevant to support the page's content. Hope this helps! Meatsgains (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably a weak-lish one. I suppose you need to be fairly well acquainted with the New York music scene to write "CBGB" without linking it, and parts of the article provides a level of detail that I'm not that sure is covered in the current sources. I tagged § Other band member activities with {{Refimprove|section}}, and suggest it be cut if it can't be sourced to WP:42. I've added a few {{cite book}}s, nothing fantastic. It is maybe another one of these cases were a short-lived band quit before the mid-90's rise of the World Wide Web, and sources may be available in print, but not (yet) digitized. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor:Hi… Your flagging of the self-published sources makes sense, although I thought of some of the links as verification rather than self-promotion, for example linking Marc Sloan to his website, which verifies that he has worked with many other well-known musicians, or the link to Yoga Teacher Magazine which Ivan Nahem founded – perhaps not the most relevant fact, but goes to his continued visibility. Would a solution be to put the band member websites in the External Links section? However then the links don't seem quite so relevant to the band. Anyway if it is the sense that any of this is inappropriate and the article would be better served without those links I will certainly take them down... Also, I have to add I’m confused about the statement about not linking CBGB – it is linked to in the first paragraph of the article.

It is a very valid point that much of the buzz that surrounded the "New York rock scene" and this particular band pre-dated the digital age, and therefore is lost. Encouraging reviews, particularly in European music mags (e.g. Sounds, Melody Maker, NME) are not being cited because they’re not online, although material copies exist, of course. However, I would argue that if it’s a question of verifying the existence and the reception of the band, we have the citation of a positive review in the East Village Eye (a well-regarded paper of that time) of the debut performance, and then the New York Times article locates the band in the midst of a promising underground scene of the time, after the release of the first LP. Ivan’s participation in Swans and on the album Greed can be verified on the album’s Wikipedia page. The Trouser Press article has been verified above. The albums, which are still available, verify their status, as well. All the other reviews cited, plus the fact that now, in this digital age, there is a fan page for the band on Facebook, and the news which may or may not be relevant that band members are making music together again, hopefully will persuade you and readers that the band existed and was appreciated, and deserves a place in Wikipedia. In any case I am grateful for all the assistance in improving the article. Bettina F. Rage (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (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.