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. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout (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)

Wikipedia shouldn't have an entry on a random website. At first blush, it would seem like this gets a lot of coverage, however, according to WP:CORPDEPTH, simple mentions and quotations don't count. Therefore it fails that guideline. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Procedural keep. This nomination has been run through AfD twice already, with two KEEP results. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a mainstay of the Contemporary Christian Music community, a review website. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've been here several times before and the reason to keep is the same. This is not just some random website, it is one of the most key independent elements in the Contemporary Christian music (CCM) genre and it is listed as a key reliable source by the WikiProject Contemporary Christian music as shown here back when the WikiProject had more contributors. It is used extensively on Wikipedia for that reason. Deleting the article would make approximately 1700 redlinks on Wikipedia. Here are other sources that note its releases: [1] and [2]. It's importance to the contemporary Christian music genre is indicated by a amount podcasts on iTunes dating back 7 years. Because CCM topics are very disinteresting to mainstream media, it's a slippery slope trying to find sources for ANY CCM topics which is why I asked members of the WikiProject to come up with a short list of major sources. You'll never see an article on CCM in the New York Times for example. Royalbroil 02:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 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.