Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornerstone EP

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. Regarding the merge !vote, a discussion of such can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone EP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The Album is notable, but not the EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in three sources, all of which came up on the first page of Google: Louder Than the Music, Indie Vision Music, and Louder Than the Music.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the first two sources are reviews of the EP, and the last source a news article about the EP. I'm not opposed to the merger presented below, but I think two independent reviews is enough to satisfy basic notability concerns.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first change Cornerstone (Hillsong Album) to Cornerstone (Hillsong) and place at the end. The excessive content there has no relation to the minimal content at: https://hillsong.com/store/products/music/hillsong-worship/cornerstone/ It is a liberty and they can sort it out. Gregkaye (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "It is a liberty and the can sort it out"?--¿3family6 _contribs 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes WP:GNG just by being reviewed by Indie Vision Music and Louder Than the Music.HotHat (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One review? Does not help it pass the bar of multiple. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - HotHat mentioned TWO reviews, Walter.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes. I saw only one link. Three is the usual threshold though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not spelled out in the Notability guidelines. Even two would satisfy the bare minimum of the guidelines, and definitely would be enough include the EP with the studio album article.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up on indenting correctly.

WP:GNG indicates, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Here "multiple" is usually interpreted as two or more, depending on quality (see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 52#What is "multiple" sources? among others). The quality of http://www.indievisionmusic.com/2012/06/25/hillsong-live-cornerstone-ep/ is good while http://www.louderthanthemusic.com/document.php?id=3117 is not. It's a brief review without an author. Do you honestly think that's a good and reliable source? The fact that only the first of four paragraphs discusses the EP makes it even more poor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the news item, this is the review.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per two or more independent reviews and HotHat & 3family6's excellent research.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.