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.
Only seems to be found on lyric sites; nothing of a critical nature that I can find; this would seem to fail
WP:NSONG.
Derek Andrews (
talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Derek Andrews (
talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To clarify where to merge/redirect to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
merge to
Karen Lafferty, who wrote it. (Well, at least she wrote the first verse. I don't know if anyone knows where the second verse came from.) It is an incredibly well-known hymn, probably the most widely reproduced hymn of the 1970s, and I was able to find
this account of how she came to write it, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Changing to keep based upon the sources mentioned below. I have rewritten the article accordingly.
Mangoe (
talk) 02:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep One of the cited sources, Hymnary, has several paragraphs on the background to the song's composition and a basic musicological analysis, originally in McKim. There are also several discussions of the song in Google Books, such as
an academic text that discusses the song's financial success, citing another source not on the Web. There's also a
source with more details of the song's composition, though I suspect it's self-published (& therefore not an RS). Also, I would question the applicability of
WP:NSONG, which tends to assume the candidate song exists to make money in the commercial record industry. I would expect this song would be notable as a liturgical item just as much as a record release, but it's difficult to search through the vast number of quotations to the Biblical text that provides its title. If it gets merged, then
Matthew 6 would be far better than
Gospel of Matthew, but I agree with
Mangoe that
Karen Lafferty would be the best option.
Matt's talk 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per M.R.Forrester, or Merge to
Karen Lafferty per Mangoe if no consensus exists to keep as a standalone article, per
WP:ATD-M.
Jclemens (
talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I know the song well, and this is the first time I've heard it said that it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. We would want a very good source affirming that before we merge it to that article.
StAnselm (
talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I couldn't help thinking of that when I saw this discussion: "Of course it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. Every song is based on Pachelbel's Canon..."
StAnselm (
talk) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep it is a terrible song IMO, but yes, it is certainly notable as demonstrated by the sourcing provided by StAnselm and others.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
comment Given that the outcome looks to be keep, I've moved it to the correct capitalization.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:28, 27 July 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.
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.
Only seems to be found on lyric sites; nothing of a critical nature that I can find; this would seem to fail
WP:NSONG.
Derek Andrews (
talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Derek Andrews (
talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To clarify where to merge/redirect to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
merge to
Karen Lafferty, who wrote it. (Well, at least she wrote the first verse. I don't know if anyone knows where the second verse came from.) It is an incredibly well-known hymn, probably the most widely reproduced hymn of the 1970s, and I was able to find
this account of how she came to write it, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Changing to keep based upon the sources mentioned below. I have rewritten the article accordingly.
Mangoe (
talk) 02:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep One of the cited sources, Hymnary, has several paragraphs on the background to the song's composition and a basic musicological analysis, originally in McKim. There are also several discussions of the song in Google Books, such as
an academic text that discusses the song's financial success, citing another source not on the Web. There's also a
source with more details of the song's composition, though I suspect it's self-published (& therefore not an RS). Also, I would question the applicability of
WP:NSONG, which tends to assume the candidate song exists to make money in the commercial record industry. I would expect this song would be notable as a liturgical item just as much as a record release, but it's difficult to search through the vast number of quotations to the Biblical text that provides its title. If it gets merged, then
Matthew 6 would be far better than
Gospel of Matthew, but I agree with
Mangoe that
Karen Lafferty would be the best option.
Matt's talk 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per M.R.Forrester, or Merge to
Karen Lafferty per Mangoe if no consensus exists to keep as a standalone article, per
WP:ATD-M.
Jclemens (
talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I know the song well, and this is the first time I've heard it said that it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. We would want a very good source affirming that before we merge it to that article.
StAnselm (
talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I couldn't help thinking of that when I saw this discussion: "Of course it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. Every song is based on Pachelbel's Canon..."
StAnselm (
talk) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep it is a terrible song IMO, but yes, it is certainly notable as demonstrated by the sourcing provided by StAnselm and others.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)reply
comment Given that the outcome looks to be keep, I've moved it to the correct capitalization.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:28, 27 July 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.