Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Not Dead (Like a Lion)


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

God's Not Dead (Like a Lion)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to have no content other than a list of chart histories. No sources demonstrate notability. Had marked it for speedy deletion but tag was removed. Bringing to AfD instead. KDS 4444 Talk  21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear All,

As far as this goes, if you actually look at the article, there are two paragraphs, along with the charts, and about five citations. I added all of this last night. Please check this, to see that it is indeed a complete article.I put work into this overnight, and this morning. Actually, I just checked, and there are six sources. Clearly, I cited my references, and I put everything together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The song charted, in two different years, meaning it meets WP:NSONGS. It should be filled-out, not deleted. It was also featured in a minor film. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Things are being fixed, although deleting isn't the solution. I definitely have to incorporate some suggestions. Bcplayer383 —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is great, but you do not have forever to do this. While we all understand that there is no deadline, neither is Wikipedia obligated to indefinitely retain half-finished articles with inadequate references on non-notable subjects.  That is what the user sandbox is for.  By bringing the article into the Wikipedia mainspace, you are opening it up to scrutiny by other editors.  If one of those editors believes the subject of the article is not notable and nominates it for deletion, then other editors usually have seven days (sometimes more) to address the concerns raised and fix the problem or else the article is removed.  In this instance, the last four "sources" are rankings on a music chart— none of them "discusses" the song at all, none of them "says" anything about the song except that it must have received a certain amount of air play and sold a certain amount of copies relative to other songs.  If the song were truly notable, there would be actual articles about it by reviewers and music critics, not just chart rankings.  And while having been the title song of a[n apparently dismal] film, there still appears to have been no actual coverage of the song anywhere, no discussion of it in the press.  WP:NSONGS is a guideline, a useful tool for quickly assessing possible notability; WP:GNG is a set of policies which establishes what the criteria are for actual notability.  If the song is notable, great!  Let's see some citations to sources that demonstrate that (sources other than chart standings or the bands own website).  Yes?  KDS 4444  Talk  06:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He actually does have forever. Deletion discussions are not about whether an article is good or not, but whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, which is the case here, then the article should exist. If the article should exist but is of poor quality, it should be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Only. Not quite true, NSONGS also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Although it should be noted that I am not making any recommendations of any description in this instance, I wonder whether there is anything of "encyclopedic content" when all the article contains is chart placements. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that. The point is that we determine if a subject is notable or not, but this subject is notable and there should be sufficient content. Just because it has little less than charts now is not grounds for it to be deleted. This debate still has not been listed in any projects so I'll pint two Christian music project members, and . They both tend to find good sources for albums. If they think they can find additional content, then we'll expand the article. If they think they can't, I'll strike my decision and let this go. I'll also mention that their album Born Again (Newsboys album) is up for AfD as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Actually, it's alright. All the references I used, and all I wrote, can be deleted. If you even took the time to look right now, you would see a list of five references. But, if you want it deleted, then please just do it. I am no longer going to involve myself in any further discussion, because this is all very stressful. I will let you guys sort this out, if you would like. I am just writing articles, and contributing. If this isn't worthy, then fine. You can be the judge. I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a personal commentary on your editing or abilities. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm only saying, that I actually did have references, and did add writing. Did they just miss it somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcplayer383 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What we're saying is wikipedia should have more than charts and blogs to support the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NSONGS #1. It needs expansion and referencing, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to God's Not Dead or Newsboys discography since the only information imparted here are chart positions, which are nicely summed up in the discography page. If it can be expanded by showing the song has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (which is what WP:NSONGS really says), then keep it. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your job is to determine if it should be kept or not based on available sources, not determine its fate based on its current state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, it should be redirected based on available sources, too. I didn't know this was a job. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When you make a !vote, it is your responsibility to do the research. That's why there are search links at the top of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And for the record, added several additional sources and some backstory for the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a fan of some of Billboard's more obscure charts as a guide to notability but there's enough here to justify keeping. Whether or not it eventually gets merged elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Michig's sentiment about obscure charts, but the totality of this article meets WP:SONG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:11, 2 January 2016 (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.