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. This is a tricky case because it involves the concept of inherited notability, which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia. However, there seems to be a reasonable argument that inherited notability does apply, as both parent and daughter articles are notable. Additionally, there haven't been any deletion arguments advanced other than from the nominator, so "keep" seems a reasonable choice. This result should not preclude the result of future discussions of exactly how the notability of articles like these should be construed from the sources, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View from the Vault[edit]

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

This is not really necessary--any meaningful content is covered in the articles on the albums themselves. A brief explanatory note at Grateful Dead discography should suffice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the parent article for four other articles: View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four. These albums are not simply associated in name; they are an album series, as demonstrated by their collection into a box set ([1]). However notable the individual albums are, the series is more notable. If the series article and the individual album articles are considered to duplicate each other, then it is the album articles that should be removed (ie. merged here), not the other way around. Neelix (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Each of the four View from the Vault albums is a separate and distinct album, and each is certainly notable in its own right. Therefore, each of the four albums should definitely continue to have its own separate article. But that in itself doesn't suggest either way whether the article under discussion, the one about about the series of albums, should be kept or deleted. By way of analogy, each Pirates of the Caribbean movie has its own Wikipedia article, but there's also a separate article about the film series. In that case, the film series is considered sufficiently notable to warrant having its own article, even though a lot of the material in the film series article is also covered in the individual articles about each film. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - The example you provide demonstrates a parent article that is a valid article; it does not demonstrate that parent articles can be invalid. I disagree with your assertion that the Pirates of the Carribean film series has notability that is separate from the notability of its constituent films. It is the notability of the constituent Pirates of the Carribean films that grants notability to the series, just as it is the notability of the constituent View from the Vault albums that grants notability to the series. Neelix (talk) 19:08, 30 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG:

Two New York Times movie reviews: [2], [3]
Paywalled Pittsburg Post-Gazette article.
Paywalled Worcester Telegram & Gazette article. Summary from Google News: "That's a selling point to ``View From The Vault, a video/DVD release of The ... ``View From The Vault is the opening salvo in what hopes to become a..."
Paywalled Worcester Telegram & Gazette article. Summary from Google News: "The band's in-house Grateful Dead Productions cranked out the video/DVD/CD package ``View From the Vault II, which airs a 1991 Grateful Dead concert from..."
Paywalled Herald-News article. Summary from Google News: "The Grateful Dead's View From the Vault archive series just-issued fourth volume includes DVD and CD recordings of 1987 performances in California with..."
Paywalled Sun Sentinel article. Summary from Google News: "The home office is releasing View From the Vault CDs and DVDs of select Grateful Dead concerts from an archive containing literally thousands of recorded..."
Paywalled Daily Herald article. Summary from Google News: ""Grateful Dead: View From The Vault" is a live Grateful Dead show from Pittsburgh's Three Rivers Stadium from the "Touch of Grey" tour..."
Paywalled Philadelphia Daily News article. Summary from Google News: "There's barely been time to ingest the Grateful Dead's super four-disc "Steppin Out - Europe '72" and along comes the three-disc "View from the Vault III"..."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response All this establishes it that it exists, which was never in question. The issue is that it is not clear that there are third-party sources about the series as such, rather than about individual volumes (which are explicitly mentioned in several of your sources.) Simply doing a Google search for the term doesn't prove anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the volumes are sources for the series. The two are inseparable. Neelix (talk) 13:53, 5 September 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.