Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Have a Saviour

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 no consensus. A Train^talk 07:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Have a Saviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Previously contested PROD. Album fails notability requirements. Did not chart well. No. 82 and on (some) chart for five weeks in Australia. Two entries without reviews at AllMusic: http://www.allmusic.com/album/we-have-a-saviour-christmas-music-mw0002427734 http://www.allmusic.com/album/we-have-a-savior-mw0002420121 Billboard entry is empty: http://www.billboard.com/album/1498513/we-have-a-saviour-christmas-music Not the Billboard 200, or Christian Albums, but hit 42 on Christmas Albums (or Holiday Albums) for one week. http://www.billboard.com/artist/303522/hillsong/chart?f=325 which is not a prominent chart and not likely to gain the notice of many. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the chart in Australia is the official ARIA chart... "bulion" on the Australiancharts.com forum is Gavin Ryan, who is an independent chart analyst who provides analysis of the Australian charts based on information supplied directly to him by ARIA, hence his being able to provide all those chart positions on the forum (here's his analysis of the current ARIA singles and albums charts [1]). He also produced a chart book for the ARIA charts, but it only covers the charts up to 2010 [2].

What I'm not sure about is that the ARIA chart is currently a top 50, so Ryan's placing of this album at no. 82 is presumably based on information supplied by ARIA of positions 51–100 on the album chart, which is not made available to the public. In that case, does it become OR? Richard3120 (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA publish a top 100, not 50. 51-100 is in their report which is made public and archived by the National Library of Australia [3]. This issue shows the albums entry at #88. This issue has it leaving the top 100 with a highest point of #82 with 5 weeks in the chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still low charting and it did not result in any press. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for the supposed "editorial review" from Amazon.com that was just added and it appears to be a review supplied by the label as it's used all over the place: https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22This+Christmas%2C+our+friends+from+down+under%2C+Hillsong%2C+bring+us+an+album+full+of+inspiring+and+festive+songs+soon+to+become+Christmas+classics%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=bcbWWcaQIsfViAPvnLaoCA so not a RS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: charting in both Australia and United States, hence passes WP:NALBUM#2 and subject of a radio broadcast to pass #7. As for Amazon.com can you prove that the other sites have not repeated its editorial review?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NALBUMS states that the criteria may make the subject notable. It doesn't make the subject notable. I can't prove the review on Amazon is copied from another source or vice-versa, but then, neither can you. Since the review isn't signed by a reviewer's name, it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I dispute your claim that anonymity in Amazon.com's editorial reviews is grounds for it being non-RS. Furthermore you assert that it was "supplied by the label": can you substantiate such a claim?

    You also assert that "it did not result in any press", whereas I've supplied reviews from press sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was settled long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Amazon.com_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Survey_of_Amazon.com_reviews_with_comments Wikipedia does not consider them to be reliable sources. The additional press was not substantial. http://www.louderthanthemusic.com/product.php?id=1074 is the longest review and there is the breathecast entry. I would expect a lot more from this major group when they were at their peak. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Per above comments, charting (and being the subject of a radio broadcast) "may" make something notable, and in this instance both would appear to do so in concert with each other. It would be handy perhaps if the wording in NALBUM were a bit clearer in terms of the album either being or not being notable, rather than maybe being so, but there we are. That said, we do seem to be at the lower reaches of notability with this particular album, given the relative paucity of the coverage. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant mainstream coverage - fails general notability. I'm noticing a lot of Hillsong Church-related album articles on Hillsong Music Australia#Hillsong Worship .28formerly known as Hillsong Live.29 - I wonder how many could withstand AfD versus being a single entry on a list. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimTempleton: I have made these a weekend project in the past, but an anon from Brazil like re-adding them. I'll gladly comment on each AfD you create in the field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2017 (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.