Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One source fails WP:NALBUMS "with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that of WP:GNG) The source listing is borderline WP:UGC similar to WP:IMDB. I don't consider that counting as one RS, far short of "significant" in several. Widefox ; talk 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep One source meets NALBUMS. It's a chart. If the band, meets WP:MUSICBIO No. 2 by charting on any genre's chart then the album is also notable. I fought for the removal of several Hillsong albums and this notability guideline helped save several other albums and lack of charting tanked several as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How can one meet GNG quoted in NALBUMS above? "sources" in plural. Yes, the band is notable per WP:MUSICBIO, but that's irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. Widefox ; talk 18:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep - Speedy Keep per Walter Görlitz above. Charting at number 16 on the Billboard Christian Albums chart is highly significant. There are other Hillsong albums that were kept simply from achieving ARIA Gold status, and that's not even a Billboard chart. I will say that the article could be improved with more sources. More sources probably could be found for the article. But as far as I am aware, this album is more than safely notable under the current guidelines. Jair Crawford (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, significant, but not the notability give in WP:NALBUMS quoted above, which is the guideline. Charting, WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT isn't in WP:NALBUMS, does it hold weight? Currently it fails GNG with one UGC source! Widefox ; talk 18:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I would suggest a search for reliable sources be done for the album. A few months ago a lot of the really early Hillsong albums went through AfD debates, and articles were found on then and implemented as sources on their respective pages, as well as sources of their ARIA Gold status. The same can easily be done for this higher charting album. I remember shaidar cuebiyar and 3family6 helped to find sources for those particular albums and all of the articles were closed as Keep. Those albums charted even lower than this one. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Others have suggested that since December 2009 (see ref improve tag on the article). Presenting some would save it, yes. That's why we're here as nobody has (yet). Widefox ; talk 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to be clear: WP:NOTINHERITED. All albums from notable bands are not automatically notable. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." per WP:NALBUMS. Widefox ; talk 19:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:GNG says that sources for establishing notability need to be something that "addresses the topic ... in detail". This article has no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Moreover, charting alone does not suffice to establish notability. Charting, per WP:NSONG only "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable" – it is not sufficient by itself, and does not override WP:GNG. The only source cited in the article is a one-row chart on Allmusic. I'm not especially expert about Allmusic, but in addition to the fact that the source has no detail or analysis or commentary, I note that the only cited source seems to be a site that attempts to catalog all music (as the name says) rather than only discussing truly noteworthy music. Also, my understanding is that it is a commercial service that gets much of its data directly from the people who produce the music and therefore should not be considered especially independent. Having said all that, the (only) cited source doesn't even discuss the subject. It just lists its peak Billboard chart position and that's all. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is probably not the only source out there for this album. It's the only source in the article currently, but this article can be improved rather than deleted. See my response to WideFox above. I think we are being way too quick to delete this article when I'm convinced more sources can be discovered to establish its notability. As of now I still stand by my vote. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe it isn;t notable, I don't know. See my reply above about this article being tagged for years and nothing produced. Instead, the notability tag was removed! Finding sources should be done before creating the article, but it's not too late. Widefox ; talk 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:BEFORE. The nominator clearly did not make a research as asked by WP:AFD itself. Rather than demostrate notability, he prefers to delete the page. A basic Google search plus Billboard charting, and critical response denotes the notability of the album. Clean-up is required, not deletion. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 04:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What critical response? I've looked, and I haven't found anything. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a review from Crossrhythms. Do note that it is a review of the video version of the album, but it is exactly the same as the album, as it's a live album. (The CD just has the audio only without the visuals). http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Live_Worship_From_Hillsongs_Australia/All_Things_Are_Possible/10091/ Jair Crawford (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging that up. It may help somewhat, but it's only a one-paragraph blurb. IMHO, doesn't really meet WP:GNG's requirement for coverage "in detail". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally it wouldn't but I think that with the combination of the fact that it charted should work. That's how the other older Hillsong albums all got a keep status. I'm just going based off what I've seen in other recent album AfD discussions though. Jair Crawford (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- With the high profile that Hillsong have, I would expect this to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to All Things Are Possible (Hillsong album) per Talk page discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2014 (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.