Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Citations don't support the article

While I'm sure there were online campaigns to get The Lillywhite Sessions released, I don't think that this one mandates its own article. All of the citations on this article do not mention a "Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign", and none of them say a campaign led to the recording and release of Busted Stuff. Prove me wrong, or I intend to nominate this article for deletion. Milchama 12:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

-- While it is unclear what factors all played a role into the release of Busted Stuff, you're wrong about the citation portion. The MTV article mentioned an Online Campaign and links to where the Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign was originally hosted (See text: "Fans of the band have spearheaded an online campaign asking for the unfinished album to be officially released on MTV article"). Furthermore, the EW article mentions it by name (*complete text of EW reference below) - and the Rolling Stone article (I have the print version) mentions the campaign and Arora as well. Also, page two of the Nancies.org interview (http://www.nancies.org/news/2002/10/interview-with-steve-harris/2/) mentions the campaign by name (first item) with an interview with Busted Stuff producer Steve Harris. Steve does not confirm or deny the campaign's role in the release... so while I agree that it is unclear how much of a role the campaign played in he release, having been a major Davehead during the time I know that this campaign made some headlines. At the time, many people on DMB forums credited the campaign for playing a role... but again, still unclear. My vote is on keeping the article, but editing the last sentence to indicate the fact that a) there was a lot of fan support including this campaign b) Busted Stuff was released, but its unclear as to how much of a role each factor played.

• COMPLETE TEXT of EW ARTICLE: "The Official Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign (paware.com/lillywhite) Last year the band recorded--and scrapped--an album with long-time producer Steve Lillywhite, which remains shelved, forsaken for the poppier Everyday. People who lose sleep if they're lacking the recordings of a good concert took news of an etire missing album hard. Thus was launched this site, a campaign for officially releasing the music as a CD. Sub-CD-quality tracks have made their way onto Napster, but crusade mastermind Pankaj Arora of Rochester, Minn. still claims there's momentum for a Dave-sanctioned disc."

[edit] more citations referencing campaign, supporting majority of article

a quick google search returns several links referencing it as well...........

> http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,130389~4~0~davematthewstellsewcom,00.html ... mention on bottom of right side bar

> http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/internet/0,6115,256453_6_0_,00.html ... article mentioned above

> http://atforumz.com/archive/index.php/t-55269.html ... text of different article .. not referenced yet, see paragraph 10 for mention

> http://dmbshnhaven.net/lws/RollingStoneLWS.txt ... first article is text of Rolling Stone article, mentions campaign

> http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/fox/lillywhite.html ... independent reference of campaign stating "it may have worked"

i agree with above poster to keep article 131.107.0.101 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This campaign was merely a fan site which got some national attention. There is no official proof that this led to the recording of Busted Stuff. There are no articles for higher profile DMB fan sites like Nancies.org or AntsMarching.org. The only way this campaign belongs on Wikipedia is if there is concrete proof that this campaign (and not the combination of fan inquiries in the aftermath of the whole Lillywhite/Everyday situation) was the reason behind Busted Stuff. Milchama 19:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Holding the article to the standard that it “has to be the reason for the album release” is invalid and is not the same standard that other articles are held up to. For example, there are several cases of notability and/or mainstream coverage of an endeavor that are documented regardless of if that endeavor led to success, or if reason for success was clear. With that said, notability and potential impact – as it relates to a given topic, niche or otherwise, is a better Wikipedia gold standard and is more commonly used. It appears that this campaign was potentially successful–or at the very least an influential and noted campaign, and not merely a fan site. It passes several of the Wikipedia litmus tests for notability as the sources are indeed in order, and due to its part of the band's history it deserves to stay regardless of if it was the sole reason or a reason for the release - or if that fact is clear or not. It is clear from the press coverage and fan response that the campaign was well known and made a notable impact. In this case not only did the campaign receive inordinate press coverage, but it was directly commented on by people involved with what the endeavor was trying pursue (e.g., Steve Harris for one – and some articles quoted the band’s publicist in direct response to the campaign). The sources appear valid, and the aforementioned "gold standard" logic should be that which is used for making article relevance decisions, not the point of the campaign leading to an album release. Your points on citation and mention do appear to be proved wrong. Clarifying the article to mention the uncertainty of influence on outcome is the appropriate action.

Keep Agree 120% with editor's "keep" comment above, article meets relevance standards albeit topic is niche - as are many others. 207.200.116.199 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Question Is national attention enough to warrant an article? I believe that if this campaign deserves a mention, it should be within the articles for The Lillywhite Sessions and Busted Stuff, but not as a standalone article. Milchama 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep (Answer) The point you raise is interesting, and it’s a question of standards and precedents. I’d argue that this not only received national attention but also, as previously stated, grabbed the attention of those directly involved in the ordeal as well as made a potential impact on the final outcome. To your point on national attention: There are many events reported in the national press that gather much attention and are arguably unimportant to most people (e.g., high profile scandals, crimes, other cases). These often times involve people who were otherwise not famous, such as Jon Benet Ramsey and John Mark Karr. The national attention alone is justification for Wikipedia articles in those cases. Granted, this topic is more niche and did not receive coverage at that scale given the topic. However, formulating and adequately scaling in the coverage it did receive along with the fact that it reached those directly involved in the matter, added to the fact that it *potentially* influenced the outcome and that the question of whether it did or did not was raised directly to those directly involved: I see a compelling reason to keep it separate in its current form. Actually, I would even go as far as expand upon it and paraphrase some of the references in the media to outline the questions raised to the Producer/Manager/band/etc. adding more context to the campaign’s potential influence and how it was received. So to directly answer your question: In many cases national attention is enough justification per my example, and in this case it is a combination of several factors including enough national attention given the topic, how far up it reached, and potential impact/influence. There is no compelling reason not to keep it, but several reasons why it is significant enough to keep as its own relatively small-and-separate article based on standards and precedents.

Keep Well said and agreed. Discussion can continue, but the Keeps outnumber - so removing deletion notice. Further discussion can continue as desired, but please do not revert to deletion notice without agreement given that discussion has occurred. 207.200.116.199 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting on this page

!Voting to keep or delete an article is not discussed on talk pages. Take it to WP:AFD and see what others think. semper fi — Moe 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)