Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music to Raise the Dead


 * 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 - after four weeks of debate, I see no consensus on this one and none forthcoming. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Music to Raise the Dead

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable albums. Prod declined because "there are sources", but I see only one valid secondary source since the other is 404'd and probably not reliable anyway (it seems to be a blog). Deprodder also said "by a notable act", but notability is not inherited.

tl;dr: they fail WP:NALBUMS, and All Your Life should be freed up for a notable song of that name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Prod added because "Non-notable album, no sources.". I removed because nominee can't see the source. It's an important album because this became the band's theme. Resurrection Band: Music to Raise the Dead. The album is sought-after and two of the songs are covered later by the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are two Articles linked to one AFD? All Your Life is less notable, as no songs were covered later, but the album is still sought-after. If a song needs to be put here, then we just need to make the page disambiguation and link to the two different articles. No need to remove. Nominator should know that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Songs were covered later" is not enough. These are early demo tapes on a non-notable label. "Sought after" is purely immaterial. Do you not know what WP:GNG means?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Two articles are on one AfD because they are very similar in terms of their notability. Yes, we could have two separate discussions, but the outcomes should be the same for both. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, these are by a notable act. However, WP:NALBUMS is very clear that album articles need "multiple reliable sources", which do not seem to be available. That these are, in effect, demos ("independent cassettes") compounds the problem. We need "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" which is not in the articles and I have not been able to find. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Two is multiple. How many would you say is "multiple"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 20:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, and the band's nearly two dozen other albums are notable. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." (from WP:OSE). The citation of NOTINHERITED by the nominator is clearly off base, since NOTINHERITED expressly recognizes the sharing of notability between musical works and their creators. Finally, I remain perpetually baffled by the idea that encyclopedia should not cover obscure but important aspects of notable subjects; that is an important function an encyclopedia should serve. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I think is a silly argument. You're saying that just because one item in a category is non notable, it should be completely allowed to circumvent WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V just because all its cousins are too? Sense made = 0. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find reliable sources to support notability of these and so they fail the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep they both have some references however they could use with more. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  20:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete titles and merge any useful content to Resurrection Band. Notability of these individual topics has not been established, though it would be useful to mention them as part of the history of the parent topic. The cassettes are already mentioned in Resurrection Band, though perhaps some information on production and distribution might be useful.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable source says Rez is "the most influential band in Christian music history", and all 21 of its albums currently have pages. Those at issue here are the only two that came before the band's studio debut.  Better sources likely exist and should be added.  If nothing else, these albums are very important in the history of a band that is very important in the history of its genre.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, what User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If sources exist, where are they? Don't just say there are sources, prove it or your argument's null and void. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was that the sources should be added (someone previously said that they exist), but that was not a fundamental part of my argument. The context of these albums is described in the first non-Intro paragraph of the Resurrection Band article.  I don't see how you can argue that they (the albums) are not significant in the history of the genre.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the someone else who said they exist should prove that they exist. Right now your argument is founded on someone else's baseless argument. I think it's completely pointless to say "but but but, sources exist!" and then make no attempt to prove it. For all I know the "source" you found is a site you just shat out on Angelfire. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, my argument does not depend on the existence of sources for this album in particular, but on the importance of the band. If the Beatles had a little-known pre-studio album that was nonetheless important in their own evolution and the initial building of their popularity, would it be notable from that fact alone?  The situation is similar in terms of the fish-to-pond ratio, though the pond of course is smaller (I hope you understand the metaphor).  You may agree with that line of reasoning or not, but I'll thank you not to be so rude about it.  It's a bit unclear to what you are referring in the last sentence of your last post, but if you mean this reference that I provided in support of the band's importance, I would say that you should not be commenting on Christian music AFDs if you don't know that Christianity Today is one of the most prominent periodicals in the evangelical community.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERITED. I do not agree with your argument nor with your example. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz pointed out, WP:INHERITED says that music is one of three guidelines that "do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". However, I don't see any mention of such an exception in WP:NALBUMS.  Can a more experienced hand please clarify whether such an exception exists, and if so what its nature might be, or whether this is a conflict in the WP guidelines that should be corrected?  Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Silktork. The inforation about how "influential" it is can just be put on the band's article. Right now there aren't enough third party sources to warrant the article on its own. Sergecross73   msg me   16:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Silktork. Not enough reliable third-party sources. --Neutralitytalk 22:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the "true" first producton by Rez, one of the biggest influences on Christain rock music, it's notable and should be included. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me how you think WP:ITSNOTABLE is worth keeping. What sources say that it was a big influence? If there are any such sources, I'm not seeing them. Show with sources, don't tell me with weasel words and empty phrases. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Bushranger was referring to the band, rather than the album, as "one of the biggest influences on Christian rock music". I have already cited the source for that.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The source must be vague then, if you're resorting to weasel words in the text ("considered to be"). If all you can do is consider, that's probably a sign it's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only person who has used the word "considered" on this page, so I am not sure what you are talking about. As I said before, a Christianity Today review argues that Resurrection Band is "the most influential band in Christian music history".  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:07, 27 October 2011 (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.