Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Is


 * 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. No evidence that this article meets the reliable sources needed for GNG, willing to WP:USERFY however. Secret account 08:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Is

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is a user review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Hillsongs have a history of doing well in Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart and the album Cornerstone got significant chart success. Jesus is/n't on a chart record that I found.   Gregkaye (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Muddying the waters doesn't help. The question isn't whether Hillsong (not plural) have a history of doing well and wither or not other albums have charted, it's whether this album has charted or met some other criteria for inclusion. As NALBUMS states, "that an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve - The article isn't perfect but just needs better sourcing. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Improve? How? It's not a notable album! Please provide the sources that support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I actually can't find any evidence to say this album's notable at all!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue improvement. I would argue to merge into the artists' discography article, but Hillsong is too prolific per the WP:TOOLONG clause at NALBUMS. Allmusic is a solid reliable source and allmusic used to be named as one of two preeminent websites for the criteria on music notability. Looked like a cleanup template issue for requiring more sources so I added them. Having Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin credited as contributing to the album increases its notability . It was hard to wade through all of the material since I got over 1 million hits on searching for sources.  Royal broil  00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you check the AllMusic entry for this album? It's nothing but a track listing an a pair of user ratings. This does not meet notability. A staff review must review the album and provide a rating and that has not been done. There's nothing to salvage here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ♦talk 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep and merge Jesus Is: Remix into this article. The album was reviewed by Cross Rhythms, and Tony Cummings included a brief discussion of the album in another Cross Rhythms article. There may very well be other sources out there as well.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per policy, sources need not be present in the article, they need only exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not implying that I stated that they needed to be in the article. I merely stated that, at the time, only one reference that met RS was in existence, or at least that I was aware of. With the Sound Scan addition below, it might be enough now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It charted on the Nielsen SoundScan for Top Praise & Worship - see page 20. This is what I mean by there may be other sources - I, and apparently other, haven't done an in-depth search.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, to recap, there is one review, but the album charted, so it's somewhat notable. I think enough so for an article.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per charting info supplied by 3family6, and other RS describing the album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep the album has charted as per the sources provided by 3family6 and as the other independent references provided.Dan arndt (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the chart, it did not make the top ten that week in the limited category "Praise & Worship" (Each chart reflects Christian and general market combined album sales for the week ending August 27, 2006.), it was #20. Insufficient coverage for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment using the principle of WP:NSONGS, "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.", it doesn't require the album to have reached the top ten.Dan arndt (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria. #1 on the charts is a lot more suggestive than #20. --Bejnar (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * the fact that the album charted is a reflection that it had significant sales in that category. #20 is better than never have entered the charts at all. That together with the independent verifiable reviews is enough to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If sales numbers were presented, it would be a different discussion. We should only be considering major charts. I say that for all albums, not only this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Another RS review had been added, as the remix version content is now in this article, a review of that material by Jesus Freak Hideout lends further weight to overall article's notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. The same problems remain. --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will run a search again for this album - I can't remember if I did a thorough search, as I might have stopped when I found the charting info. My opinion is that any national chart numbers are sufficient for notability (this is Nielsen SoundScan, not merely the magazine's, chart).-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 22:44, 14 July 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.