Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwhelmed

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmed[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 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) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ The article cites a review by Cross Rhythms, and so certainly should not have been PRODed. I can't find anything on a g-hits search, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ now has 3 reviews.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are the two added reviews actual reviews and not just advertising from the vendor?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They're not RSes and they're not professional reviews. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I accede to 3family6's greater familiarity with CCM sources. I didn't see too many Australian sources at wp:ccm/s and so I searched for .au sites only. I thought that since Cross Rhythms was selling the same product, such reviews were acceptable here. I will continue to look for other sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should recommend some Australian sources at the CCM/S talk page. The difference between the Cross Rhythms review and the two others you posted is that Cross Rhythms reviews albums independent of the store. CBN.com does the same thing, and so do other publishers too. If you could demonstrate that the two sources you added did not originate as advertising and are instead quotes of a professional review, then they can qualify as reliable sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm voting weak keep and not full keep as it seems this album had some pretty good coverage. Although some of the sources might be more on the advertising side of things, the album has a solid review from Cross Rhythms as well as an AllMusic mention. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are single-handedly changing the definition of words. We have three track listing "references" and a short review. How is that "pretty good coverage"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I'm voting for a Weak Keep and not a full Keep. I'm trying to be as lenient as I can when it comes to coverage. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 10 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.