Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

More than two years after the previous deletion discussion, the article remains essentially unsourced and clearly fails the WP:GNG need for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail", and this article is completely lacking in that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Cannot see anything to support notability in its own right.   Aoziwe (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous deletion discussion. The fact that sources have not been added makes no difference to whether the article should be kept: AfD is not cleanup. In any case, the fact that it appeared on a Billboard chart is enough to indicate notability. StAnselm (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Charting (especially within a relatively small market segment) is not a substitute for WP:GNG. There are no independent reliable sources that discuss this topic in detail, and there never will be. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, if this were in any way notable then someone would have cleaned it up by now. Charting on an obscure genre chart is not in any way an indication of notability or importance.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Sadly, this is a fallacy. Lots of notable topics have poor articles. StAnselm (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is acceptable to have an article that cites no reliable sources that discuss the topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course! Wikipedia is a work in progress. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think that someday there will be some independent reliable sources that discuss this particular topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but the concern is that no progress is being made after a rather long sample timeframe (2 years). And while, yes, there are lots of bad articles out there, that doesn't help defend an article once its at AFD. Charting is good, but it's simply unacceptable to have an article be entirely unsourced outside of a chart position. Sergecross73   msg me  20:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks like you're arguing that because this article is very poor and has no sources to support it, it must be notable? If there are sources, then present them so they may be assessed.  If there aren't, then the article should be deleted.  Vague feelings that sources probably exist, somewhere, is not a substitute for meeting the WP:GNG.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Charting album, nomination and delete !voters do not articulate policy based rationales for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that the album is from 1997, prior to widespread Internet journalism, the title is itself both a Bible quote and a song title. Still, we have, , , , as well as accompaniment tracks and sheet music.  It's missing critical commentary, but that doesn't strike me as unusual for a live Christian music album. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at those four links, they seem to consist of a promotional performance announcement that only mentions the topic of the article as one entry in a list of 11 albums by a group, and three commercial sites offering the album for sale (or offering a tracked link for referral to another site that does). Do you think that someday there will be some independent reliable sources that discuss this particular topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are already, but they're offline. That's what we mean by presumed notability. StAnselm (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines, we don't presume that things are notable until we see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS says that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It does not use the word "presume". The only use of the word "presume" is in WP:GNG, which says that a presumption of notability is formed by identifying "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Since we have identified no such coverage, as far as I can tell, there is no presumption of notability expressed in the guidelines. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We can make calls on potential sources, sure, but to be a persuasive argument, generally you'd want a little proof that the sources are out there (for example, if a website like Metacritic aggregates a few magazine reviews that are trapped away in print form offline.) Otherwise, your argument just kind of fails the WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Sergecross73   msg me  20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We can make calls on potential sources, sure, but to be a persuasive argument, generally you'd want a little proof that the sources are out there (for example, if a website like Metacritic aggregates a few magazine reviews that are trapped away in print form offline.) Otherwise, your argument just kind of fails the WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Sergecross73   msg me  20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - The lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG. A low charting spot on a genre-specific chart isn't enough, WP:NSONGS even says as much. I'm willing to consider if better sources are presented, but so far, just about all of them are retail/database entries like Amazon or iTunes, which I'm rather shocked that experienced editors would try to suggest would constitute significant coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Hillsong is notable in its genre (contemporary Christian praise music), so that their albums should also be notable. There clearly is an implied published source: the album cover. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your entire argument is a textbook violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:EXIST. Not every release from a musical group is notable too, and I have no idea how one would use an album cover to meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73   msg me  15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Hillsong albums are a big deal.  Note that  the toolbar won't help because full article title is an improbably search term.  Searching, for example, ""All Things Are Possible" + Zschech brings up sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it bring up any sources that address the topic directly in detail (and are independent and reliable)? I tried that, and did not find any. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the article I added from a Florida daily paper is certainly a WP:RS, although I was searching "All Things Are Possible" + Hillsong at the time. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't access that article. How much detailed discussion of the album is in it? Now I seem to be able to access it. It seems to be discussing a different work (Shout to the Lord – The Platinum Collection), not this album. The only potentially relevant sentence seems to be "Disc 2 reels off several Hillsong favorites: the bouncy, brassy All Things are Possible, the toe-tapping God Is In the House, and the jubilant, rocking title track." I think the first of those three songs is the title track of this album, but that does not indicate notability for the album. It might indicate some minor degree of notability for the song, but it does not discuss the topic in detail. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. considering the millions of views the videos of this song have gotten, the multiple books and several websites that have published the song as sheet music, and the source you discuss, I conformed the lede to the idea that the article is about both the album and the (very popular) title song. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Jair Crawford (at the previous AfD) cited a review of the VHS version of the album, here. However BarrelProof stated that this is "only a one-paragraph blurb. IMHO, doesn't really meet WP:GNG's requirement for coverage 'in detail'." I don't know if that review will help this debate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think a review like that constitutes "significant" coverage. It's certainly more than a "passing mention". StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it significant coverage. Its only one paragraph, and the writer rambles off-topic multiple times in the beginning and end. Very little of substance is actually said of the album. Sergecross73   msg me  15:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possibly merge with album or artist, if and only if the category to be merged with is notable). I could not find any suitable WP:RS for this.  If you can, I might change my mind.  Please place links below.  I looked at previous WP:AfD and that didn't convince me either.  --David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2017 (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.