Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article uses a dependent source, which is the book itself. Therefore, it makes the article fail the General Notability Guideline. Interlude 65 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - this request for deletion may be based on an erroneous notion. The link to find sources/news above actually does find a fair number of mentions in third-party sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: a topic can't fail WP:GNG because its article is poorly sourced; for a topic to truly fail the GNG would be for significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources not to exist, and that seems not to be the case here. I know that the following is quite possibly the most tired argument at AfD, but the nominator should have followed WP:BEFORE and checked for other sources before nominating. CtP  (t • c) 20:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking sourcing, claim of notability, awards and charting. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SOURCES for not having any, hinges on WP:PROMOTION due to it's language, and even when assuming good faith is presented in a very non-neutral POV. My favorite quote is; One interesting thing about the list is that it transcends genres - mixing rock, country, rap, gospel, folk and every other style of music imaginable, which is obviously promotional and non-neutral in nature. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article, rather than the topic, needs to meet the General Notability Guideline? (Is that the standard?) The link to find sources/news above actually does find a fair number of mentions. (What are they?) That seems not to be the case here. (Why?) lacking sourcing. Fails WP:SOURCES for not having any. What about Milwaukee Journal Sentinel March 29, 2001? I suggest closing as no consensus since there's not much interest providing comments on the deletion request that the closer can use to make a decision.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there are a few entries in third-party publications they all seem to be mentions in passing or directory listings. I can't find any in-depth coverage of this book. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2012 (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.