Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetshakers

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetshakers[edit]

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

This is a weird article made up of three components: an Australian church, its band, and a former band member known for fraudulent claims to have had cancer. I can't see much evidence of any notice outside the walled garden of mutually self-congratulatory christian worship song fandom. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weirdness is not a reason to delete. This is an obviously notable megachurch. St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage exists both from Australia ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and overseas: Borneo Post, Cross Rhythms, Christian Today, and at least two albums were released through Sony/Columbia (via Integrity Media). --Michig (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 175 unique Google hits, none of which look to be reliable independent sources about the group. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Michig's links above? It looks pretty clear cut to me.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added content, they've are the subject of numerous independent reliable sources (per Michig) and had a nation-wide TV programme's segment on them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with all the points above, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (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.