Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music to Raise the Dead (3rd 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. Favonian (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Raise the Dead

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only "improvement" was a single encyclopedia listing. First AFD was open for 4 weeks with no consensus; second was closed as keep due to one reliable source. One reliable source is not enough; we all know you need two or more. And I found jack shit on these guys. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going through this again? How many times do we want to keep listing the same article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many reliable source would you like? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final query: one WP:RS isn't enough? WP:NALBUMS states that it needs "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" and WP:GNG "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So is the issue two sources? Will that engender a fourth deletion nomination because "two reliable sources are not enough". I seriously feel that this is not about Wikipedia but about WP:AXE which is why I want everything laid-out clearly before I continue to do research. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you find me something with a little more meat on it? This article has been 100% static except for the addition of one minor listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many albums released forty years ago have ongoing edits? Of course it's static. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely a notable band, but as far as I can tell this is more or less a demo tape--the article goes out of its way to tell us it was recorded in a basement and isn't considered their actual debut. Demo tapes (and similar) aren't generally given articles even when they're by very notable bands. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or when they have significant coverage by reliable independent sources, like this article has now. Bow down to my awesome Google-fu. Diego (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Resurrection Band. I weighed in on the previous AfD, and after another search here three months later, my reasons for redirecting are basically the same. (1) "Music to Raise the Dead" serves as the (sub)title of multiple recordings by the band. (2) Reliable sources also mention it as the band's slogan. Due to these factors, I believe "Music to Raise the Dead" to be a reasonable search term, and the band's main article makes sense as a target page. It's difficult to justify a 'keep' because I can find only trivial mentions of the original cassette here and here using Google Books, Google News and NewsLibrary. Now, it's certainly possible that coverage exists somewhere else offline - this is a pretty obscure recording from almost 40 years ago. Based on what I'm seeing in the available online sources, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:PRESERVE and redirect to Music to Raise the Dead 1972–1998, the boxed set reedition, which has reliable sources (the one at The fish is by Russ Breimeier, who is a critic listed in Rotten Tomatoes).
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SNOWFLAKE. Diego (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Resurrection Band(biography): "After arriving in Chicago, the band recorded two independent cassettes that were given away after their concerts, which were performed anywhere Resurrection Band was allowed to play, from schools to prisons to street corners. The first cassette, Music to Raise the Dead, featured hard rock, while All Your Life comprised only their acoustic numbers, which was a reflection of the folk-oriented sets they would play at more conservative venues such as nursing homes and churches, the latter of which were deeply skeptical of Christian rock, especially the borderline heavy metal that Resurrection Band specialized in." Per the arguments in WP:SNOWFLAKE, this is enough analysis by professional critics to merit keeping the content, either here or merged into another article. Diego (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That biography is a mirror, no? Gongshow ^Talk 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I didn't notice the small link back. But if it's at Wikipedia it must be verifiably sourced, isnt' it? :-P Diego (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I'm the primary editor of the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay). Diego (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have an interview to the artists which again gives context to the single: "And I don't know of anybody else who played rock that sounded like rock, so a lot of people wanted tapes and we got a lot of letters. People kept on pestering us and said, look, whatta we gotta do? Come out and record the concerts? That's the only way we can get tapes of the band.' We talked to a guy in the area here in Chicago who had a little 4-track Teac machine. We went into his little basement studio and we recorded an acoustic set, which we had maintained for a number of years. So that was the 'All Your Life' tape. And then 'Music To Raise The Dead' which was just the rock set. That was really the thing that we were about. We released both. We went in and probably over a period of three or four days recorded both little cassette tapes. I don't even remember how many we pressed up of each, but we sold out in just a few months. There were so many things going on in terms of the community and the schedule at the time of the band's travels and everything else, we never pressed any more. And then we never did any other professional recording that would be released as such until 'Awaiting Your Reply', which was done in 78." Diego (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks okay - nice find. Gongshow ^Talk 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's only 2 possible outcomes for this AfD. The first is that it will be kept. The second is that it'll be redirected to the band's page, which is what happens with albums that aren't sufficiently notable on their own. User:TenPoundHammer knows policy surrounding music, bands and albums, and shouldn't be wasting time with this kind of nomination when he could be adding to his undoubtedly high-quality content creation. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another good reason to keep is the argument #2 made by The Uninvited Co., Inc in the second nomination - namely that the WP:NALBUMS guideline is biased towards new media and it's not at all clear how that consensus applies to old recordings, where expecting online sources is not reasonable. In this particular case I think the appearance in an encyclopedia is sufficient indication that it had offline secondary coverage from which the encyclopedia was written. Diego (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed in Powell, Mark (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. pp. 752–7 and Di Sabatino, David (2004) The Jesus People Movement. Lake Forest, California: Jester Media pp. 170-1 and per Diego Moya --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (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.