Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone's Been Rolled Away

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) 01:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone's Been Rolled Away[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 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 article 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) 09:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep, possibly keep~~ A Cross Rhythms review is cited in the article, and the album is mentioned on page 134 of NRB (National Religious Broadcasters), Volume 30 and page 61 of Charisma and Christian Life, Volume 24, Issue 5. Both of those sources came up on google, but I cannot access them so I do not know how in depth they get, hence my hesitation to give this article a full "keep" vote.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Weak delete~~ I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S, and I think the journals above only give discography listings. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ARIA gold certification as shown by Shaidar cuebiyar below.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm going to keep my vote a weak keep because of the Cross Rhythms coverage. Since it's only one source, my vote is a weak keep, and not a full keep.. Correct me if I'm doing the vote wrong. I'm very new at this. Draw a line through this. Vote amended below. Jair Crawford (talk) 02:24, 25 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Amending my vote to a Strong Keep as the album is certified Gold by Aria. The album has an ACM mention (as well as a few other mentions in sources mentioned in the above discussion earlier) and a solid review with Cross Rhythms.Jair Crawford (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An AllMusic review? I'm sorry, I've missed that completely. Where exactly is that? I don't see it in either the article or listed here. I see ACM, but that's barely a track listing. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/hillsong-mn0000679370/discography is their discography and it's not even listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. I've edited my vote to indicate that it was ACM, not AllMusic. I'm on the fence between Keep and Weak Keep, I'll keep it on Keep for now. And thank you for crossing out my earlier vote for me. Jair Crawford (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now you have a track listing at ACM, which is not substantial. You should be on the fence between delete and speedy delete. You do need 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable 3) sources that are 4) independent of the subject. What you have is one source with minor coverage—a single paragraph, which apparently is now considered a solid review—that is independent of the subject and one source that is a track listing in another. How can such coverage be considered anything but insufficient to confer notability on the subject? I could see if it were an album released in 1981, but not one from the mid-nineties. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The notability guidelines are very general. The review might be a tad on the short side but it is a reliable source. And the guidelines do not mention anything of requiring multiple reviews. It seems a lot is left up to interpretation and I tend to favor keeping articles if they can be kept over deleting them. That's how I'm interpreting it, at least. Jair Crawford (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're very specific. You do need 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable 3) sources that are 4) independent of the subject. Multiple is "sources" it must be more than one, and depending on the quality, it's usually three or more. See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 52#What is "multiple" sources? and other discussions in the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for linking me to that discussion. I'm still of the opinion, after reading that discussion, that a lot of this seems left up to interpretation. However, you have convinced me at least that a full keep for this article is a bit too strong of a vote. I will amend my vote to a Weak Keep. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certified gold by ARIA.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album certified gold by ARIA. Dan arndt (talk) 15:45, 1 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.