Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Album (Hillsong United album)


 * 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The result was speedy keep per WP:SK, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The White Album (Hillsong United album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the new references I would like to withdraw my AfD request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This album is not notable under either NALBUMS nor GNG, so it must be removed from this encyclopedia. HotHat (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: This album clearly passes GNG and WP:NALBUMS per the five reviews from AllMusic, Cross Rhythms, Indie Vision Music, The Phantom Tollbooth and Louder Than the Music. In addition, it charted on three Billboard charts, which was for the week of March 22, 2014, and those positions were as follows No. 48 on The Billboard 200, No. 4 on the Christian Albums chart, No. 1 on the Dance/Electronic Albums chart.HotHat (talk) 10:43, 24 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) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per good research by HotHat. Article is clearly notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Well documented in reliable sources, and charted very well.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sloppy, low-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 24 June 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.