Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Isaiah Saw (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Isaiah Saw[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previous AFD kept via WP:PERNOM. The current sources are just trivial mentions of the song in the context of choir concert reviews, which are not a way to convey notability. Not a single source in the article is about the song itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A "meh" discussion 2 years ago is no excuse for skipping WP:BEFORE. [1] and [2] are the first two mentions in the above Google News link, both from the 2021 (the most recent) Christmas season. Here's more. Pretty sure all that is in addition to Hobit's contributions to the prior AfD. There's a NYT listing from 2014 which is a bare mention, and of course YouTube hosts a number of instances of notable choirs singing it: while neither contributes directly to notability, they each demonstrate that this relatively young (20 yo) choral piece is real and being widely performed by appropriately diverse choirs. That is, it's not a niche, fad, or promotional piece, but an actual article on a topic that our readers can be forseeably curious regarding. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Your argument for deletion isn't about the sources that exist (and discussed in the prior AfD), but about the status of the article? Hobit (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: "Not a single source is about the song itself". Every source present just mentions the song in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in the prior AfD and the ones above. Topic seems above the WP:N bar unless I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Hobit.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: @Mythdon: How many of these sources are about the song itself? My count is zero. They're all about choir performances. Not the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that the sources show Dream Isaiah Saw to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The song dates back to 2001, but multiple sources (despite being mostly brief mentions) have shown Dream Isaiah Saw to still be notable 20+ years later. This here is more than just a brief mention and talks about how Dream Isaiah Saw was composed by Glenn Rudolph after 9/11 which is definitely about the song itself (it's history and whatnot). The article may not completely satisfy the letter of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSONG, but the subject is still notable and merging/redirecting this content (as it stands) would not be feasible given there's not a proper target to merge/redirect it to. Since there's enough sources to demonstrate that the content does have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, deleting it wholesale and nominating it for deletion altogether it itself a violation of the spirit of WP:BEFORE. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your point, but I'd think the performance of a song, and the song itself are basically the same thing? I mean if I read a review for a play performed by a certain cast, wouldn't that count toward the notability of the play? Is a song any different? But in any case, [3] is very much about the song IMO. The second-to-last paragraph of [4] gives us a few decent sentences about the song. [5] has a couple of sentences too. Adding in the ones that are just about the performances, I think we're over the bar. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough coverage identified in the previous two posts to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Jclemens. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2022 (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.