Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now but one moment let me stay

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. --Core desat 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now but one moment let me stay[edit]

It's a poem. The article must be deleted or move to Wikisource. -- Magioladitis 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm going to clean up what's there.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - No ghits, not verifiable/notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More details about this poem can be found on Rhiannonsmoore (talk · contribs), however I'm not sure whether it is correct. John Vandenberg 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears valid: [1]. John Vandenberg 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the poem removed and there is an article instead, I think we can keep it. Magioladitis 08:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poem is unknown, althought there is no guideline on when to include poems, AFAIK. Clearly some poems, like Jabberwocky or Ozymandias, are acceptable; also clearly it would be insane to include all poems. As this poem is thoroughly undistinguished, I can't imagine keeping this. --JayHenry 18:54, 28 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.