Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling the Angels

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The result was withdrawn. After recent improvements to the article, the nominator has now voted to keep and effectively agreed that the AfD can be closed. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling the Angels

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed as new page reviewer. IMO the album separately does not satisfy wp:notablility. Sources is a brief mention in an article and an on-line review, plus a cite which doesn't seem to verifiably define a source. 98% of this article is a massively expanded track listing, including a separate listing of every performer for each track. The rest is just two sentences. The SNG specificly describes this situation and recommends merge into the artist's article. If so-decided and nobody else will I'd be happy to handle that if the closer would ping me. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the head's up. I've expanded this article somewhat. When I wrote it, I was like you, new to a unique situation. Since then, I've expanded my knowledge on writing articles a bit. As for the "massively expanded track listing." It's my opinion that an article should include as many facts as possible. For example, if I want to read about this album, I think it's important to know who the musicians were, just like I would read them in the liner notes. Without that information, the article is incomplete. I know brevity in an article is usually preferable. Maybe I could have condensed it some, but I like to follow the original notation as much as possible. that being said, if my current improvements still don't merit a separate article, merging it would be the lesser of two evils, I suppose. I'd rather keep it as is though.HowlinMadMan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I'd like to expand on the inclusion of the musicians. When mentioning a song in casual conversation, you wouldn't expect someone to rattle off the names of every contributor to that song's existence. That would just be silly. I believe that in print, however, that premise is entirely different. One can choose whether or not to read the list of credits. If you include those credits, the reader can make a choice. Don't include them and you've taken that choice away. It's like telling the reader what they should be allowed to know on the subject. Credit is an operative word here. When writing a permanent article about a subject which is available for the whole, wide world to view, I believe it is important, if not imperative, to give credit where credit is due. Some of my music album articles will name Discogs and AllMusic as being a source of where I find information. This is true only in the sense that I do some copying and pasting of information to save myself the time it would take to type it. I then take the liner notes and modify that information to match those liner notes more exactly. I find that those two original sources are often inaccurate and incomplete, but I still feel they should get credit for helping me obtain my goal in a more efficient way. I still appreciate them, even though they're not totally reliable. I contribute to Wikipedia to give others like myself a chance to read a more reliable, more detailed article. You can take this article and merge the basics, doing away with all the credits and other things you don't find necessary or important, and you're left with something at least… just not enough something to paint a whole picture.HowlinMadMan (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythyms which have been added to the article, passes
WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep IMO the addition of the reference and content moves it close enough on the issues which I nominated it for to stay. BTW the unusual degree of expansion of the track listing was not an AFD reason, it was just discussing that the non-context content was 98% an unusually expanded track listing. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With no dissenting opinions now, can this nomination simply be withdrawn? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would have done so but didn't know that that option was available once the discussion has started.North8000 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2020 (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.