Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extravagant Worship: The Songs of Darlene Zschech

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. (soft). Feel free to drop a line at WP:UNDELETE and it can be speedily userfied. slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extravagant Worship: The Songs of Darlene Zschech[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS and AllMusic ref is only a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I found a Cross Rhythms review and a brief mention in Christian Today.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple (three or more) reviews are required. I only see these, and a brief comment isn't a review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'd read "multiple" as more than one. I know a brief comment isn't a review, it's a brief comment. What I'm suggesting is that it indicates that the album might be referred to in more than just the sources I gave. As is, the support for this album looks pretty shaky, unless chart positions are found.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding a lot of results for Zschech's book, Extravagant Worship, so it might be best to create that article and merge this article into it.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it deserve an article, by all means create one. I'm not sure what the notability criteria for books is, but it sounds like it would meet GNG at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a yet-to-be-created Extravagant Worship book article.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG et al; Userfy for 3family6's use in creating a book article, if that editor chose so to do. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 2 July 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.