Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Boogie For Jesus!

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 of the debate was Multiple (see below). This is a complete mess, but I'll try my best:

• Salvation Air Force: No consensus
• Tom Howard: No consensus
• Alex MacDougall: No consensus
• Strangers In A Strange Land: Redirect to Stranger in a Strange Land
• Let's Boogie For Jesus!: Delete
• Donnie Gossett: Delete
• Michael Leon Gossett: Delete
• Prayer Warriors On Parade: Delete
• Not Sleep Music: Delete
• We Shall Rock!: Delete
• Bleed The Dream the album: Delete
• Zero Avenue: Delete

--Deathphoenix 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Air Force

A much smaller article was the original nomination and Salvation Air Force added later, although it is the main article. The original nominator wrote the following paragraph about Let's Boogie For Jesus!. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

An easter-egg advert for the external link. Google search for "Let's Boogie for Jesus" returns 5 hits of which (worryingly) this is the top one. RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the rest of this walled garden, many of which have been contested nominations at WP:PROP.

• Let's Boogie For Jesus!
• Donnie Gossett
• Michael Leon Gossett
• Tom Howard
• Alex MacDougall
• Prayer Warriors On Parade
• Not Sleep Music
• We Shall Rock!
• Bleed The Dream the album
• Strangers In A Strange Land
• Zero Avenue

--RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Above comment was before the nomination of the whole walled garden. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising Maustrauser 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Above comment was before the nomination of the whole walled garden. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all, the Salvation Air Force is legit --Ruby 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable except Tom Howard, Alex MacDougall and Salvation Air Force, which appear legit. Sandstein 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ALL as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The group has a thirty year history, has produced several albums, satisfies WP:MUSIC, has worked with some major players, and done all this while essentially being a niche band. We have many articles about more obscue subjects. The articles on albums should probably be merged and redirected, but the group article is certainly valid. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification of vote. Keep the group article and make the album titles redirects (or delete if you prefer) No vote on the band members. Could be merged. DJ Clayworth 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, except possibly Salvation Air Force, as non-notable. Guy 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep salvation air force Jcuk 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of making the main article the title so that people actually get to read the reasons why the band is notable before getting to the silly articles about their albums. A quick check will reveal that this is not a 'walled garden'. There are links from major articles into Salvation Air Force and Tom Howard. Unless you consider Larry Norman part of the garden. DJ Clayworth 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I should add that Strangers In A Strange Land should be Redirected to Stranger in a Strange Land (the Heinlein work). Carlossuarez46 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to put a damper on the spirit of debate, but why do we think this band is non-notable? They satisfy WP:MUSIC in at least three different ways; they have recorded several albums with a major record label; they have toured internationally; they have worked with major names in the music business. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but I'd really appreciate it if someone who said 'not notable' would say why they think that. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the debate is re-framed and re-defined it's always easy to question what's been said in the past but your lobbying to keep the band appears to be sincere. I will take the position that the band may or may not be (barely) notable -- although the Let's Boogie For Jesus! article shows that a band member (Donnie Gossett) wrote most of the songs, produced the album, and the album's label was donniegossett.com (for authors in print media this looks and feels like vanity press) -- that notwithstanding, its members and its albums are not. Not every album issued by even an undisputedly notable group is worthy of an article: some major artists have no discography (e.g., Glen Campbell) or where they do, see the discography section of many important artists and you'll see an absence of links (e.g., Johnny_Cash_discography) or red ones. Now, perhaps some people think that Salvation is bigger than Campbell or Cash, but IMHO they're not. Moreover, members of notable groups are not inherently notable. For example, see, e.g., the article A*Teens; each member's name is a redirect to the group which says all that need be said about the members which in some cases (like birthdates and places) is more extensive than those of Salvation's member's long-winded articles. The A*Teens, regardless of what you may think of them, have sold 8 million albums -- the Salvation article provides no sales numbers, so no assertion of notability on that score. So, in short, the band may or may not be a vanity-press produced group either barely notable or just not notable. The band members and its albums are clearly not notable. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that the articles on then individual albums need to go, but the early albums for this band were on Myrrh Records, a division of Word Records, definitely not a small player, especially in the Christian music business. I'm not sure they've sold 8 million albums but this is definitely not vanity publishing. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have less problem with the group than with the albums and band members. It seems we're at least on accord there. But as I understand it Myrrh has gone through some change of control and that it's name was apparently detached from its legacy, but I'm not familiar with when that happened and it's not really worthwhile to figure that out -- others will do so. The named album that was the original title of the AfD is the one that appears to be vanity publishing and nothing you've said contradicts that. However, as the original nomination was for the albums and the band members, my vote on them remains Delete. As for the band itself, I'll take no position and let the consensus consense (nice made up verb?) Carlossuarez46 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Krash also left some explanations on my talk page pointing out that the band gets no entry on allmusic or Amazon and only 400 or so Google hits, plus the article was written mostly by one person. Honestly I have to admit that those are very bad signs and I would be skeptical myself. All I could say was that the band was mainly active long before the internet, and (I would have to admit) not big enough that their back-catalogue is still on sale in anything except specialty used outlets. I don't know what happened to Myrhh later, but at the time they were owned by Word, and Word was unquestionably the biggest publisher of modern Christian music, in the days before it was fashionable.

I should also probably say that Let's Boogie For Jesus! does look like vanity publishing. My vote for that is now delete. DJ Clayworth 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. KHM03 23:54, 24 February 2006 (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.