Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Worship Project


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 06:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Worship Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage of this album is not sufficient to pass GNG and it really does not pass WP:NALBUMS even with that one lone review of the album at Cross Rhythms. All it has got is to be merely mentioned in the bands overall history. HotHat (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete A release from a notable band but without sufficient coverage. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There actually are three sources given in the article - the Cross Rhythms review, an interview by Kim Jones of About.com, and a CCM Magazine article reprinted in Crosswalk.com. In addition, the album sold 60,000 copies, VERY impressive for an unsigned artist, and its success is what helped this now VERY important band get signed on INO. I did a quick Google search, and while I could not find anything right off the bat, I highly suspect that other stuff is out there, as G-hits searches don't find everything. Hold up! - I had a brain wave. I forgot that I own a copy of The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, published in 2002, right when MercyMe was getting started on INO. I knew that there is an entry on MercyMe (there's basically every even marginally significant group in this book), and I just looked it up, and sure enough, a size-able part of the entry, which granted is not very large as MercyMe was just getting going, is dedicated to The Worship Project. Date-wise, Powell confuses it with Look, but his discussion of songs indicates that he is reviewing The Worship Project. All of this can be found on page 587, for those who have access to the book, or who are able to get to that page on Amazon preview. I was going to go for "weak keep" based off the previous three sources, but with four sources discussing the album I'm changing my vote to "keep".-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 13:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think notable coverage has been established. Shii (tock) 20:24, 28 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.