Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As the Deer

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the Deer

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

A9 declined for no reason. No reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article as written is very poor, but there is reliable sourcing, and it is easy to find if one bothers to look for it. [1],[2] and many, many more. Jacona (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There would appear to be many reliable sources found by this book search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Gbook search for the name of the hymn and the author's last name does seem to show this to be a notable hymn. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JaconaFrere: @Shawn in Montreal: And these sources are just going to magically add themselves, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

of course not, User:TenPoundHammer, but in discussing articles for deletion, the discussion is not about whether the article contains sufficient sourcing. The discussion is rather, about whether significant sourcing exists that the subject matter can be considered notable.Jacona (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rephrasing slightly, it's not "Is this article good?", but "Is this subject notable?"Jacona (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator still doesn't realize after all his years here that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. He is to be applauded for his enduring cluelessness. It's actually something of an achievement, because you think he'd soak it up by sheer osmosis, if left long enough. But no. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I really hate is the endless cycle: Someone nominates an article, someone else posts a bunch of sources, yet no one ever gets around to adding the sources to the article, so five years later, the article is still an unsourced nanostub because everyone is always expecting everyone else to do it. Don't bother digging up the fucking sources and saying "keep" unless you're going to add them yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, that I can at least understand. But you don't seem to get, after all your years here, that it's a waste of time bringing articles to Afd if you can readily tell by doing your WP:BEFORE work that the thing is in all likelihood going to be found to be notable. And that no amount of complaining about it at AFD or badgering people is going to change basic policy. So this clearly isn't working as a strategy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So User:TenPoundHammer, I'm so sorry to be the awful person who looks up sources and doesn't immediately drop everything and update the article you didn't bother to look up sources for and just nominated for deletion. I admit, there are many issues on Wikipedia that I am aware of, but I have not fixed. Sorry about that! Jacona (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: is this your policy on all AfD nominations??? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AfD is not for article improvement. St Anselm (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found above - and this is why I declined A9. It's usually uncommon for contemporary Christian hymns to not be notable, as there simply aren't that many of them. The main concern for the article - that its subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia - is something that will be revealed through reliable sources or not. It's clear that those sources exist. Obviously the sources should be added to the article at some point, but it is clear that this subject is notable from this discussion and any other discussion seems irrelevant. Appable (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep personally being a Catholic its the song i hear in my church and I think it should have coverage on wikipedia too i have added sources if wrong do correct it --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 09:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a ref for the hymn's text. I'll never sing it myself but I don't see a reason to delete. Yintan 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the most notable modern hymns. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:46, 15 December 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.