Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary

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 Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Note that merge is a form of Keep, as the article history remains, behind a redirect. note also that a merge result is not binding on future editors, although it is usual to seek some form of consensus before undoing a merge that resulted from an AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary

This article violates WP:NPOV in the extreme; is filled with unencyclopedic religious language and appeals; makes claims that cannot be substantiated (yet alone cited); and is more of an essay than an article. I think it is unsalvagable, and more importantly, in my opinion the subject is not sufficiently noteworthy to merit an encyclopedia entry. It might be folded into the article about its parent organization. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had just written a response but it has been lost due to "edit conflict." I strongly object to removing the article.--RikEischen 02:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove POV material and Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Groupthink 02:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The article describes a particular religious denomination's main hymnal. The tone of the article can be improved to better follow the Wikipedia manual of style WP:MOS, such as by removing some unsourced statements such as " The beauty of the language shines through, praising God, from whom all blessings flow." This is just a function of the normal editing process, and similar statements have been removed from articles about Popes and evangelists of all descriptions. Any statements in the article which cannot be verified from the hymnal itself or from references can be deleted. An informative and valuable article all in all, but lacks sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources as described by WP:A. Edison 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Evangelical Lutheran Synod per Edison. —gorgan_almighty 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, Merge to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. --Haruo 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as argued above. A large part of the article is about the Synod in question and its differences and alliances with other branches of Lutheranism is better treated there. RikEischen: please reply again with your arguments for a keep - at least some of us here will want to hear them. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per ↑. --Edtropolis 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RikEischen, see [1] for the library of your denomination's seminary. The librarian may be able to help locate reliable sources to help you write a great article about the denomination and its hymnal. They usually keep clipping files relating to coverage of church related topics in such libraries. A denomination which has been around as long as yours likely has been written about in numerous publications of your own and other Lutheran denominations, as well as encyclopedias of religion, books of local history, and newspapers. Whenever you write from personal knowledge, it will probably get deleted as original research. Edison 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reasonable start with reasonable sourcing. we are judging the topic, not the article. The article can be improved, following the suggestions above. The nomination has me a little puzzled--because the hymns seem to refer to beliefs not all share, this is a failure of NPOV? No, its objective description DGG 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm asking this honestly, not rhetorically or sarcastically: Do you really believe that this topic has enough independent noteworthiness to be encyclopedic? Groupthink 08:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair question. Yes. It's the principal liturgical reference for a denomination. There is a history behind it, and the article talks about that history. Hymnals are usually a massive compromise, and the compromise evolves over time. I wish we had more articles on similar subjects. DGG 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: Why should this article be separate instead of merged with the subject's associated denomination? Again, not sarcastic or rhetorical; in fact, you might be able to convince me to change my recommendation. Groupthink 07:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I'm not too big on deleting articles that are only a few days old. 1450 hits on Google suggest that there is potentially enough there to build a worthwhile article. While it does need a complete rewrite, I prefer to leave the article as is and re-examine the deletion issue a few months down the road after it's had time to develop. Trusilver 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. >Radiant< 16:39, 19 June 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.