Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ: The Musical


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ: The Musical

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate this passes any general or specialty notability guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Between the prod - I deprodded as it had been deprodded in 2007 - and the AfD nomination, I found and added links to reliable sources that do at least mention the video, including a piece on NPR that discusses the fair use issue of using "I Will Survive" with the video's creator. So there aren't no reliable sources anymore. Whether the coverage amounts to enough to save the article I will leave to the judgement of others. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The proffered sources look to be brief to passing mentions of the work in the context of broader topics. I'm not sure about the reliability of a couple of them either. Still doesn't seem to be enough to support an article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - numerous mentions in highly notable sources. Thanks for the research Fences and windows. While most of the sources are mentions, as opposed to detailed discussions of the piece itself, the sheer number of sources gives a good case for notability. Even successful internet comedy videos generally don't get much in the way of press, so when one comes up in this many sources, I think we have to take that as our cue. Zachlipton (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage means "sources address the subject directly in detail....Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One sentence or two in various longer articles about things other than this video do not meet the definition. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in many of these articles, discussion related to the video gets more than just a sentence or two. Rather, the video is a much more central part of a number of these sources. The mentions are generally more than trivial and the sheer number of articles in reliable third-party sources has to stand for something in balancing the prongs of the Notability test. Zachlipton (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some people think it's funny, and I don't like it - so what? It is sourced.  Springnuts (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – per Springnuts' comments. – Turian   talk  04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The media mentions seem very tangential and fleeting. NBeale (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is a well known internet videoMark E (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2009 (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.