Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hills Praise

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hills Praise

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

Contested PROD. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per the review given in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple reviews are required. AllMusic is a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Sorry, I forgot about this AfD, because there are so many HIllsong related ones. I did a more thorough search, and couldn't find anything, so I'm amending my vote to delete unless Shaidar cuebiyar magically appears with ARIA chart or certification info, as they have done on some other of these AfDs.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the review found by User:Shaidar cuebiyar. I suspect that there are more print reviews that have not been found. Walter Görlitz does not think that a one paragraph review is enough for notability. I think that this review, in combination with the review already in the article, is enough for notability.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this archive of articles at CCM usable, it has a review and rating of Hills Praise from April 1998. If its usable, the other Hillsong-related AfDs could be affected.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a valid set of reviews so it could be used, but no, it won't make a difference. A short review doesn't help to meet notability. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6, has multiple reviews by independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not a fan of contemporary gospel music, I agree with 3family6 and Shaidar Cuebiyar's comments that there are sufficient sources to establish the album's notability.Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2014 (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.