Talk:Glauben können wie du

Notability
This article has questionable notability. Most of the sources in this article are primary, and some are self-published. Those that might be considered reliable, are not independent.

Few poems reach the amount of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to meet the standards of general notability for inclusion as its own article in Wikipedia. Poet and WW I soldier Alan Seeger's famous I Have a Rendezvous with Death is one of the poems that does not. The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost, does, and includes references from The Poetry Foundation, The Guardian, and books published by Princeton University Press, Bucknell, U. of Minnesota, Cambridge University Press, and the New York Times. Countless poets with well-referenced articles on Wikipedia, such as Sharon Olds, Eileen Myles, or Apollinaire for example, do not have any individual poem as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, as the standard is pretty high for that.

I don't see that Glauben können wie du meets that standard; certainly not with the current source list. Please add sufficient sourcing to establish notability for this poem as a separate article. The template links above may help. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not only a poem but a hymn, published in the Gotteslob (current Catholic hymnal), and used in a major composition. - If merged to the author's article, it would be of undue weight, and there's also the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gerda, thanks for your response, but you didn't address the notability issue, which is what is at stake here. Whether it's a poem, a hymn, or both is irrelevant. In addition, a Catholic hymnal is a primary source, and is hardly an independent one. If you know of independent, reliable, secondary sources that establish notability of this subject, please add them. An article which is deemed not notable may be nominated for deletion.  Also, please do not remove maintenance templates while this issue is under discussion and remains unresolved.  Mathglot (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no time for this, sorry. There are so many articles with real problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I agree that merging the entire article into Helmut Schlegel would give the song undue weight in that article, but you could perhaps add an abbreviated version of it. I don't see what other course of action is available, as this article would never survive an Afd, in my opinion.  Perhaps that is the best course of action, after all. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the composer? It would be unfair. - Where do you see anything self-published, btw? I think we may have a misunderstanding. It's published in Gotteslob, the official common hymnal of the Catholic Churches in German-speaking countries, selected by a commission. - My last deletion discussion was for Johannes Hill. Before Hochschule für Musik Mainz. All a waste of time, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your "What about the composer?" comment If you merge (some of) the content here into the Schlegel article, then it would live there. I think you're right about the self-publishing, though, and I've removed that tag. But that doesn't really affect the Notability issue, which remains.  The other two articles you mention have nothing to do with this one, and may have sufficient notability to be retained.  I've completed the WP:BEFORE steps for this article, and it doesn't appear to be the case here. Having checked myself, I can see that you've done a thorough job of finding pretty much everything that remotely refers to this hymn.  The question is, whether what you've already found is sufficient to establish notability, or whether it's all just trivial or passing mentions, because I don't think there's really anything else out there still to be found. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you expect about a 2009 hymn? It's there, it was chosen for the common hymnal, which makes it notable, period. Usually secondary sources are wanted to establish that notability. - You seem to be the only one who has a problem here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ps: perhaps read Gotteslob. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I only expect that a 2009 hymn, like any other subject on Wikipedia, would meet the criteria of WP:GNG, no more, no less. Being chosen for the common hymnal does not confer upon the subject of the article any additional notability, which is not inherited. The subject of each article needs to achieve notability on its own.  However, the content of an article is not subject to notability guidelines, only the subject is; so perhaps it is possible that you could create a list article to contain it, such as: List of hymns in the German Catholic common hymnal, and list "Glauben" there.  But I'm not very familiar with List articles and I'm not sure if a list of the contents of a book (of hymns, or anything else) is a valid use of a stand-alone list.  Maybe something you could check into, if interested, as a possible new home for the content here, or some portion of it, in case it doesn't meet the GNG on its own. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A list exists in German, de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs. It would have only room for basics, nothing about theological context and music, so I'd not be interested. Thank you for education, after more than 1000 articles in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, after singing it again - this is a song that actually gets sung while Gotteslob holds many that are only printed - I was too tired to look at the talk page, and had completely forgotten the discussion. Do we need an RfC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or actually, no; issues about Notability are usually decided at Afd. An Rfc decision to delete wouldn’t have any effect, since an Afd would still be required as that is the right venue, imho.  Mathglot (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are so far the only one who thinks that a hymn chosen by a group to appear in the common German Catholic hymnal of the Diocese of Limburg is not notable, simply by that. I think an RfC would be a means to find out if you have supporters. Self-published is one thing, but published by an official group such as a Catholic diocese in a book used regularly by thousands of people seems a completely different issue, to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a 2019 ref (Schatztruhe = treasure chest), the YouTube of the oratorio (listen at 14:40), and it was recorded, - no more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean, the upload by Leander, the Wetzlar children’s piano teacher? See WP:SPS, WP:YT, and WP:ELP. The fact that this is the sort of thing that turns up when one searches for references is one indicator that the subject probably isn’t notable. Mathglot (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "a YouTube video" but use of a hymn in a choral-symphonic work. The hymns that Bach used in his cantatas never raised such questions, afaik. Last year, we had a similar discussion about a church that one person found not notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours added 11 August is a YT video, and it is a self-published source. Placing it in External links might be acceptable if the topic itself is found notable, but that would be a separate issue. In any case, it doesn’t help establish notability. Discussions at other articles don’t affect the Notability of this topic, which requires sources acceptable to meet the GNG. Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Afd discussion closed no consensus. It will be interesting to see what develops. Perhaps in a year or two there will be more sources to bring to bear on the article, so that a clearer statement about it can be made. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. As part of my prep for the Afd, I did an English translation of the poem. I decided against including it in the Afd, but if you think it would help our English readers appreciate the article better, you’re welcome to it. Let me know. Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it in the article. For Requiem (Reger), it was even demanded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ps: I don't know about a translation of copyrighted text which on the other hand is freely available. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it under copyright? If so, it looks like you could use the form at his contact page to ask for permission for a translation to be included here. Also, "available on the internet" isn't the same as "freely available". Mathglot (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about wrong wording. I have no time for this, you could do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)