Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shout God's Fame


 * 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   no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Shout God's Fame

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Clearly does not meet WP:NALBUMS as the AllMusic link is nothing more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ♦talk 05:13, 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) 09:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviewed by Cross Rhythms, briefly mentioned in Christian Today, and cited in a footnote on page 204 of Ecclesial Identification beyond Late Modern Individualism?: A Case Study of Life Strategies in Growing Late Modern Churches. Tony Cummings in 2006 discussed the album in a Cross Rhythms article, and noted that the album was important in launching Natasha Bedingfield's career, as he mentions "four top rate worship songs 'Shout Your Fame', 'You Are My Rock', 'Centre Of My Life' and 'I Will Go' co-written by a singer about to be catapulted to pop stardom, Natasha Bedingfield, who was a member of the fellowship for six years." This comment was later noted by a writer on Beliefnet.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A footnote is not significant coverage. The Cross Rhythms review is good, but the rest are not sufficient. Almost enough for GNG though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the footnote, I just wanted to bring forward everything that I've found.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ah-Ha! I found another discussion, this one in CCM Magazine - see page 16 (page 10 in the Adobe navigation bar). Also a very brief note of Bedingfield's writing for the album on page 39 (navbar page 30) of a later issue.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The CCM mention is similarly brief and without author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which mention?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first discussion is part of the "Insider" column by Christa Farris, see page 9.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. There were two. The "Worship’s Calling!" piece was the piece without an author and was IMO a brief mention. I was reading the sources in the diff, not the discussion view and only saw one. The second, the Daniel & Natasha Bedingfield review, is only a mention and doesn't really count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The first source does have an author, Christa Farris. If you scroll to page 9 (page 5 in the PDF page list), you'll see her name under the column title. Throughout the column there are pieces without a byline, so I would assume that they were penned by Farris, unless otherwise stated. And I wouldn't consider three paragraphs a brief mention.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to note that with the sources I found, this article could easily be brought up to "start" class - I could create a brief background section, brief stylistic section, a critical reception section, and a brief legacy and influence section.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brought up to start class? They don't even make it past WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is "they?" The sources? They need to be reliable, not notable. There are two sources by different publications. The first, Cross Rhythms, you already accepted as notable. The second, CCM Magazine, has a write-up of equal length about the album. You objected to this source as unattributed, so I looked through the column, and found that the entire column is written by Christa Farris, though some of the segments in it have other authors. You also objected that the coverage in that write-up is not significant. But it is of about the same length as the Cross Rhythms source, which you already accepted. In addition to these to sources, there is another Cross Rhythms article which devotes at least a paragraph to the album.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources need to be reliable. The sources need to show 1) significant coverage 2)from reliable 3) sources that are 4) independent of the subject. Even in those cases, it only presumed to confer notability if those are present. What's missing is significant coverage in multiple sources. I see only brief coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the CCM Mag coverage not significant?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In http://ht.salemweb.net/ccm/ccmmagazine/pdf/200406.pdf Four paragraphs. Second focuses on the church. The other three as unremarkable and don't really expound on the album. http://ht.salemweb.net/ccm/ccmmagazine/pdf/200705.pdf discusses Daniel & Natasha Bedingfield not the album. It does mention the album though. How exactly is the coverage significant? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The second one is a very brief mention. If you don't think the first mention is significant, fine. I just disagree.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 12:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really a grey area. If the closing admin wants to confirm, that would be a 3rd opinion. But it's still just one source and we need sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 3 July 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 / 01:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per 3family6 information/sources above: sufficient to establish notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that you still don't know what does and does not constitute a RS and certainly not enough to establish notability, particularly when it comes to the subject of Hillsong recordings at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, whilst not a big contemporary gospel music fan (actually I don't like it at all) I would have to disagree with Walter Görlitz's preceding comments. I think that the reviews provided are sufficient enough to establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 13:38, 4 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.