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. Editors favoring keep haven't engaged the issue. That there were three previous AfDs closed as "keep" is irrelevant. AfDs aren't binding precedent; there is no doctrine of stare decisis here (and for all that, an administrator could have easily closed the third nomination as delete instead of keep, but I digress). That a WikiProject finds the site reliable doesn't get it over the threshold on its own: a source can be reliable without being notable (which is why WP:NNC doesn't apply here). Passing mentions on other websites don't make a website notable, nor does mention in unpublished doctoral dissertations. Contra some participants, policy is the foundation for these decisions unless there's a really great reason to ignore them, but no such argument was made. Regarding the charge of canvassing; it appears interested editors from the other side were invited and participated, so it doesn't affected the outcome. That being said, KDS4444 (talk · contribs), please don't do that again. Also, while AfD is not cleanup, it is a reasonable argument and expectation that for an article whose notability was first challenged in 2007, progress would have been made since then. No prejudice toward recreation with reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of the site itself. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2016 (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)

Virtually all of the links given in the "references" section are no longer functioning (or never were). Others lack independence from the subject, or are Alexa rankings (which do not qualify as useful indicators of notability). Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent, verifiable sources in order to be retained— nothing here shows that, and my own search turned up only more trivial mentions and sources lacking independence. Previous deletion discussions relied on assertions of notability (irrelevant: see WP:ASSERTN) and on its subjective importance to the Christian Rock industry (see WP:IKNOWIT for why that doesn't matter) and I suspect the fact that there have been three such nominations which have failed will also be mentioned (that doesn't matter either: see WP:LASTTIME). What matters— the only thing which matters— is the existence of multiple non-trivial discussions of the subject in reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Which there just doesn't seem to be.KDS4444^Talk 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as never having been notable despite the decisions of prior AfDs to keep. While notability is permanent this never showed notability ever. Show me that it is notable and I will change my opinion, assuming you call me here from my talk page (I'm not active at present, but respond to messages on my talk page coz I get emailed). Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Which was done as a courtesy notification— you're welcome KDS4444^Talk).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence of impact and coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after 3 AfDs surely someone would have added the nontrivial RS by now if the truly exist. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous discussions. assuming good faith on the sources having once existed is fundamental to this encyclopedia. It's not necessary to be mean. Then contacting only the two people who previously nominated it for deletion, without contacting any supporters (besides me who originally started it), is considered WP:CANVASSING. The website is likely the most well-referenced standard in the American Contemporary Christian Music genre scene. Using a google search, I see pages and pages of websites from major notable artists that are referencing JFH's reviews [1] [2]. Having the article deleted will only service to create 500 red links on articles [3]. Royalbroil 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability has been established by 3 prior failed AfD's and the fact that over 1800 main space articles currently link to the article. Many if not most of those articles are using this website as a reference and it is valuable the encyclopedia to not have a redlinked reference in 1,800+ articles. Apparently many people in this project feel it is worth using as a reference, further demonstrating notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This fourth attempt to delete this article again appears to be POV pushing.Nyth63 16:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Previously AfDed for WP:WEB and WP:CORP, no notability sub-guideline is identified here.  As for the claim, "Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent...sources", no, notability is not a content guideline, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.  Since deadlinks are good as WP:RS references, just harder to locate, the nominator confirms that he/she has not read some of the good-faith sources already provided for this topic.  Moving on, WP:BEFORE B4, B5, and B6 are issues.  B4 has been dismissed with an argument whose source says, "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend 'Keep'..., arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances..."  B5 shows a large number of links being proposed for turning red, this number was reported in a previous AfD, and turning this many links red would seem to be a high-priority consideration for the nomination.  I'm not convinced that 1800 edits to the encyclopedia are possible linking to a topic that has failed to attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell).  As for B6, there are three foreign language websites not reviewed in the nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at best as this seems notable for its field, likely not a serious deletion task. Notifying the only still considerably active past AfDers as well, Walter Görlitz and Carrite. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me. The project was notified and quite frankly, I'm tired of the perennial nominations for deletion. I agree with you that it's notable for its field. The number of articles and labels that link to the reviews here are substantial. In my brief survey yesterday, that was the majority of mentions I found via Google. I looked at other reviewers and review sites and it was nowhere near as plentiful. With that said, I don't think that the deletion of this article will jeopardize its use as a source because, as you wrote, it is well-recognized. If this is an attempt to delete references and reviews as not notable and then to delete the articles because of their lack of references, then I have a problem with the deletion of this article. If it's simply an effort to apply GNG to the far corners of Wikipedia, I'm fine with its deletion as an article, provide, and only provided, that it still recognized as a niche RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was not aware that causing the appearance of redlinks was a reason for retaining an article on Wikipedia. That's a new one for me. I've also mentioned that the outcomes of previous AfDs had no bearing on this new discussion. Some editors don't appear to have heard this. As for the three foreign language sites not reviewed— which are these? #1 is an Alexa ranking, #2 is a dead link to a website called "Lead Me to the Rock" (English, I am pretty sure), #3 is a link to a site that allows me to find a Christian retail store near me (in English), #4 is published by Jesus Freak Hideout itself (in English), #5 is a dead link to a press release (in English), #6 is a dead link to Sparrow Records (the resulting 404 error gives the reader nothing to pursue beyond its disappearance, but I am pretty sure it was in English), #7 is a dead link to what looks like a trivial mention in a listing of merchants starting with the letter "J", #8 is a dead link to a marketing website (in English), #9 is a link to an interview performed by JFH with another person (in English),#10 is a link to an article written about the band GLO by JFH (in English), and #11 is another Alexa link ("Site information", which appears to be in English). None of these are foreign language pages, and I examined all of them. Even the dead links appear to have been at best dubious arguments for notability (a dead link to a marketing web site is still a marketing website, failing independence; a dead link to a trivial mention is still a trivial mention; a dead link to a press release is still a press release, failing independence). Not one of these sources appears to be evidence of real-world notability. I am not saying it isn't referenced by lots of Wikipedia articles— any article whose notability has been established by reliable independent sources should be allowed to stand, and I am not arguing that JFH isn't reliable or independent. I am arguing that it is not notable because it has not been the subject of such sources. I have no argument with you, Walter: we are both on the same page. I am only trying to apply the guidelines for notability here, and this article seems to come up short. Too short, in the end, to justify retention. KDS4444^Talk 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability can be interpreted to mean that a fair number of people know about the subject, i.e. it is not trivial. If you click on the what links here tool from the subject page, you will see that there are well over 2000 pages that link to the article, which is verifiable evidence that a lot of people that are aware of the subject. Secondly, you are wasting your time proving that the current links are broken. Please refer to WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The fact that these sources existed, and that more are available (easily found with google) is what matters, not whether they are actually in the article. See also Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.. Also your contention that previous AfDs are irrelevant is silly. The previous arguments that exist in those AfDs do not disappear into a vacuum. The fact that this page template links to them in an infobox certainly proves that they are considered relevant. WP:LASTTIME was quoted at the top but in that section is the statement If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. This fourth nomination appears to be frivolous to me. Furthurmore per WP:FALLACY you are Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. Nyth63 11:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I searched for it and got mentions in 3 doctoral dissertations, all plausible topics (City Church, Tallahassee: Blurring the lines of sacred and secular Medic, Katelyn. The Florida State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014. 1559547. )(Behind the scenes of "The Steve Taylor Story": A documentary Gibson, Sarah Edith. University of North Texas, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. ), (The industry, geography, and social effects of Contemporary Christian Music Lindenbaum, John Daniel. University of California, Berkeley, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3383280. ) An ordinary news search turns up articles like this [4] establishing that it is a "Christian music website". I think we can confidently keep it. More significantly, however, I don't think we should run endless AFDs, certainly not on outfits that have been shown in previous AFDs to demonstrably exist and that are obviously not mere advertising or POV pushing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Drive-by admin comment: that so many articles link to something is not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for deleting. If I were closing this, I'd look for keep arguments that have some specificity to them and cite policy; so far, E.M.Gregory is the winner, and probably the only winner. Come on y'all: you can do better than this. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Argument and discussion are not restricted to policy only. Policy is subject to change and is not the same today as it was 15 years ago and in continuing to evolve. To say that only arguments or votes that city policy are valid is a logical fallacy and I would expect better from an Admin. Of course, the the comments about red linking ARE arguments per se, as several editors have made it. (I think, therefore I am, so to speak). There just does not seem to be any current policy that directly addresses this particular situation so one cannot be cited. Stating that the previous AfD's are not relevant in any form is also a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent as I quoted from policy in my previous comment above. Nyth63 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you would have us base decisions to include or to delete on... intuition? We have policy so we know what to do and so we can avoid guessing-games and long, drawn-out discussions like this one. I am not convinced that you can make an argument to retain an article based on the premise of a policy that you would like to see exist but which so far has not materialized and which quite possibly, in my own mind, never would. I am sure that is a fallacy of some kind but am unsure of my semantics beyond that. KDS4444^Talk 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, thank you for the kind words. Here is The Christian Post: attributing something to "Jesus Freak Hideout, a Christian music resource website and ministry.] [5] My search on Jesus Freak Hideous at Christin Post here: [6]. I'm sure if other editors look there is more out there in other RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much more thorough does this need to be? It has talked to death four times already. Consensus seems pretty clear for keep. Nyth63 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This publication is used by other reliable sources, such as Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music right in this search. It is also mentioned in Contemporary Musicians right in this search. These two instances are enough for me to consider this publication a notable website, for inclusion as part of this ever growing encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If reliable sources cite it, then it's likely also reliable. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N is a measure based on evidence that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: None of the keep votes have demonstrated how the website has received significant coverage. There are probably thousands of brief references to JfH's reviews, but it's a lot harder to find something substantial. I think that these sources probably exist, but the might be offline, and if online, seem to be buried by the gazillion brief quotes attributed to the site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:10, 5 February 2016 (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.