Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sea Slumber Song

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 all. AKRadecki 22:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Slumber Song

Fails Wikipedia is not a database for lyrics. Also, these poems seem to fail Wikipedia's notability test. This article, and several related pages listed below, are just the exact texts of selected poems Black Harry (T|C) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Black Harry (T|C) 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable enough for an article anyway. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Remove lyrics, these are incredibly famous pieces by Edward Elgar. Gareth E Kegg 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they appear to be rather unremarkable poems by assorted authors, which one guy decided to set to music. Why does that make them famous? Black Harry (T|C) 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the "one guy" who decided to set them to music was an internationally famous composer and one of the poets was Elizabeth Barrett Browning. ( from the Elgar article, " honorary degrees from the Universities of Cambridge, Durham, Leeds, Oxford, Yale (USA), Aberdeen, Western Pennsylvania (USA), Birmingham and London. Foreign academies of which he was made a member were Regia Accademia di Santa Cecilia, Rome; Accademia del Reale Istituto Musicale, Florence; Académie des Beaux Arts, Paris; Institut de France; American Academy of Arts."; a baronetage, RVO, Master of the King's Music, etc etc. DGG 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, so by your argument, every poem by any famous writer deserves its own article. And even if the poem by Browning is notable, what about the other four poems? Black Harry (T|C) 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be debatable whether here or Wikisource is the best place for the texts, but their brevity surely makes them tolerable in the articles. Poems used as lyrics by famous composers stand out enough to support individual articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures. The lyrics shouldn't be here unless they are treated encyclopedically (we aren't Wikisource), and none of the articles has any assertion of notability beyond authorship and use in the Elgar cycle. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures for reasons outlined above by Dhartung - there is little notability to the original poems apart from their use in the (certainly notable) Elgar work. Barnabypage 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been at least 16 commercial recordings of the songs individually or as a group. DGG 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the recordings of the poems set to music are commercially available, I don't see how this effects the need for each having their own article. Also, you and others who have voted to keep haven't yet addressed the fact that Wikipedia is not a database for lyrics. Black Harry (T|C) 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the number of recordings is that they show the very great importance of the work.DGG 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without lyrics to Sea Pictures for reasons outlined above by Dhartung & Barnabypage. I can't think of a good reason to keep these entries separate from the song cycle. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all and redirect to Sea Pictures. Lyrics should be in Wikisource, not here - unless they are being treated encyclopedically, which they are not. The remaining information in these articles is authorship, and that seems to be covered already in Sea Pictures, so probably no point in merging. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not disputing at all that Elgar is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The debate regarding lyrics is seperate to the deletion push. Personally, so long as copyright allows, the lyrics should stay. The article is a worthy stubb whose subject has provenance. DDB 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adam Lindsay Gordon's work is of national importance in Australia. DDB 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The poems are clearly notable by virtue of Elgar's song cycle and some also in their own right. The libretti could be moved to Wikimedia at some point so that the articles could be developed. Slightly Selassie 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright All the lyrics date from before 1920. DGG 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These are renowned songs and poems. Excuse My Dust 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The poems are self-evidently notable. The articles could benefit from expansion to tell us about the poets' inspirations and Elgar's compositions. I don't see much point in creating separate wikimedia articles as the poems are so short. Eric Noonan 11:45, 24 May 2007 (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.