Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du


 * 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 no consensus. There's clearly no consensus to delete. I've gone back and forth on whether the keep arguments are really solid enough to call a consensus. I've written this closing statement several times already, each time as I went back to double-check what I'd written against the arguments, I changed my mind. So, I guess that really means NC is the right call. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Glauben können wie du

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Glauben können wie du is one of approximately 700 hymns published in the widely used Catholic hymnal the Gotteslob, used in the Catholic Church in German-speaking countries. It can be seen in this List of German hymns on de-wiki under 'G'. (For some reason, I don't see it listed here, but it is perhaps not the right regional version.) As previously noted on the article Talk page in this Notability discussion, this article fails WP:GNG. The article creator has done a good job of finding pretty much every scrap of information available about this hymn, but it still doesn't satisfy the Notability criteria. As mentioned at that discussion, some of the content may be usable at List of hymns in the German Catholic common hymnal, or at the composer's article; although as Gerda points out, there may be an WP:UNDUE issue in including too much information there. But that is a question for those articles, and needn't be taken up here. I sympathize with Gerda's interest, knowledge, and passion for the topic, but that's simply not how we base decisions on what topics are notable enough for the encyclopedia. An English equivalent of de:Liste von Kirchenliedern, de:Liste der Kirchenlieder im Evangelischen Gesangbuch, or de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs would be a great use of Gerda's talents, but this article should be deleted as not notable. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As I speak no German, and don’t see it in the referenced talk page discussion, is there a refutation of all the sources that have been used? I don’t find the argument about sourcing to be particularly convincing, especially with reference to what other poetry articles don’t exist or contain. As an entry in an internationally-distributed hymnal, I think we have a situation similar to that contemplated by the chart-listing provision in WP:NSONG, for which an RfC might be appropriate. I would also ask whether the third point of WP:NSONG might apply, if it has been independently released as a recording by several notable organizations (which might include choirs or dioceses). I think there’s not enough information to !vote a particular way at this time, but I’m definitely leaning keep. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * all the sources are either WP:PRIMARY, or they have no significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Merely listing the name, author, and year along with several hundred other hymns that have the same type of mention, doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the non-list sources are primary or otherwise unacceptable. Similarly I believe there is a WP:SNG exemption that may apply here, but that would likely require someone familiar with German religious music to confirm. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with NSONG, so I'll leave it to others to figure that out. What I see looking at it, is that NSONG says, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject&#91;1&#93; of multiple,&#91;2&#93; non-trivial&#91;3&#93; published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." And this hymn has not been.  NSONG also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". Imho, this non-notability argument (which I was not aware of before) would argue for a merge to Gotteslob, or Helmut Schlegel. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bit of a selective quotation there. Everything you’ve quoted is the standard recitation of WP:GNG in most or all SNGs so the SNG can’t be used to argue against inclusion for something that otherwise satisfies GNG. The specific portions of the guideline regarding publication of recordings and popularity need to be addressed, preferably by a German speaker. Until such point I think at worst this needs to be closed for failing to follow WP:BEFORE. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a German speaker. I don't understand what you are asking for; what "needs to be addressed", please? Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding WP:BEFORE: all steps listed at BEFORE have already been covered at the article talk page in prior discussions about notability, including my posting there of the find sources link. I didn't think it necessary to copy those steps here into the Afd, but I can do so if necessary. The results of clicking through the eleven 'find sources' links demonstrate that with the exception of the seven poor sources already in the article (see discussion below), there's a string of zero results or false positives. Every reasonable reference on the internet is already in the article; there's nothing left out there. Non-internet based sources may exist, but need to be demonstrated. WP:BEFORE is thoroughly covered. Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, what is a "WP:SNG exemption", please? Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An SNG exception is where we use the SNG as an alternative to GNG, rather than as an indication that GNG will be met. An obvious example is WP:NPROF where we accept other criteria to grant notability to some academics who do not satisfy GNG because those academics are underrepresented in mainstream media, and hence sources, compared to their encyclopedic value. It is accepted by the community as useful in redressing the bias caused by certain topics not attracting the same attention as others which are more "populist". HTH --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, RexxS, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of sources
Above, Mendaliv asked about the quality of the sources. So, I thought I would go over them (the numbers are wikilinks):
 * 1. This is a one-page essay about the lyrics, written by two authors in the Diocese of Limburg. Author Christine Sauerborn-Heuser is not listed in WorldCat title search; web search shows she is (or was) co-speaker of the parish. There is a 'Manuel Braun' n WorldCat (or several of them) writing about law, literature, and medieval history; and one who is a Church Musician in the same parish as Christine.
 * 2. Just a listing of the lyrics, without comment.
 * 3. Trivial mention; #885 among 893 songs.
 * 4. Trivial mention; #132 among 169 songs.
 * 5. A musical score. A one-page summary of this source can be found here. Ref 5 mentions page 230, which I can't access; according to the Table of Contents (here) that page is in the "Libretto" section. Not present in Google books. Present in WorldCat, here.
 * 6. This was written by Pastor Konrad Perabo, Pastor of the Heilig Kreuz Church parish of Geisenheim, Germany, on 28 May, 2019. It appears to be his introduction of this hymn to his congregants, as part of his sermon, or in addition to it, in October the previous year. In it, he explains how and why this hymn is particularly appropriate to sing in October, the "second biggest Month of Mary of the year".
 * The pastor makes his introduction to this series of monthly pr&eacute;cis at the bottom of the page, saying: "After the summer holidays, we begin our parish letter with a new series entitled, 'A Treasury of Praising God'. In it, I would like to share with you some old and new songs from our hymn book. But we will also introduce some prayer texts, which are recommended for personal use." Text of his October comments follow.

October is the second, major, month of Mary of the year. In it, the Blessed Mother is especially honored by the rosary prayer, in which we look at the stages of life that connect her most with her Son – from proclamation about the Cross and Resurrection, to her acceptance and coronation in Heaven. But before meditating on these stages of life, the Rosary Prayer asks for faith, hope, and love so that we can properly accept these thoughts and carry them into our own lives.

This fits the song "Glauben können wie du" (Believing like you do), which I would like to introduce you to today. It can be found under number 885. Just under ten years ago, Franciscan priest Helmut Schlegel wrote this modern Marian song, the content of which goes back to the Bible. It was then set to music by Church musician Joachim Raabe.

Faith, Hope and Love – the three great words are filled with life herein. Each stanza brings to mind a quote from Mary, "announced" by a radiant A major chord immediately before it.

Faith has its origin in listening to the Word of God. From this we have the power to affirm life with all its ups and downs, "as God gave me" and thus – even in the dark hours of life – to recognize and confess with Mary: "The Great things He (God) has done."

Hope is not some fantasy vision of a better world, but rather, it begins out of Faith by doing what is humanly possible today. That may always seem to be too little, to us. But then the Blessed Mother reminds us through her words of the miracle at the wedding at Cana, encourages us to trust her Son, "What He says to you, do that!"

Finally, love opens a view of the world, makes us recognize the Creator in every creature. So we cannot remain indifferent to what is happening around us. But that means more than just compassion. Real love brings one to be of service to others; "May it be done for me according to your Word."

That's what Mary spelled out with her life. Her example teaches us to pray: "That is how I want to believe, hope and love; Mary."

Konrad Perabo, Pastor

The most substantial of these sources are #1, and #6. Note that Google translate does a pretty decent job of translating running text in these sources, sufficient to give the gist of the content. If there are any particular passages of interest needed, I'll be happy to translate them. Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) updated to add material to #6; by Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 7. This is an archive.org page is about "Church music from the Diocese of Limburg". The page shown, is a listing of all the musicians in various parishes in the diocese available for church services.  However, I can't find a reference to the article topic there. Perhaps at one of the tabs listed on the page?


 * Keep. 1, 5, and 6 are good sources, 2 is good, if only for the lyrics, while 3 and 4 can be called "mentions", but I struggle to see anything "trivial". Shortness is not the same as triviality. I can find nothing relevant at 7, so it seems likely that page has been changed. Moonraker (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty much per . Three good sources plus some others amount to sufficient coverage for a song in a genre that's never going to attract the same mainstream coverage as any modern pop song, despite almost certainly being performed far more often. --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep strike due to filer's concern that being interested in a song you happily sing in concert and church services, and which is printed in freely available official hymnals, constitutes any conflict of interest, changing to (Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)) :
 * Comment per what I said on the talk. Ref seven is there to source, that of the Manuel Brauns, it's the organist who can talk about a melody professionally. This song was made part of a choral-symphonic work (ending a section, with audience participation, - listen), similar to those that Bach used in his Christmas Oratorio. Why is that sufficient for an 18th-century hymn (Fröhlich soll mein Herze springen) to establish that we should know about it, but not for this new one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources are good enough and notability is good enough. The bar for what is notable is not the same for all topics-a comparing of apples and oranges situation. Mainstream media sells papers on sensationalism so we cannot expect to find sources for a hymn where we might for other kinds of music. As with academics, certain kinds of books and more, within a specific kind of community we might find notability and significant use but the average newspaper or person would never know anything about this. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per my above comments and comments of the others herein. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment –  This seems a clear Delete to me, first for lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources, and secondly because everything on the internet is already in the article. I'm surprised by some of the arguments above, and wonder if we are looking at the same policies; certainly we are interpreting them differently. Sources #3 and #4 accepted here by some as non-trivial, are more trivial than the Clinton-Three Blind Mice example given at WP:SIGCOV as the definition of "plainly a trivial mention". Sources #2 and #5 are the content itself: that is, the lyrics, and the music, respectively, without additional original comment of any kind; if accepted as notable, this would mean that every song whose lyrics or sheet music were available in a database might have claim to notability, which I don't think was the intent of the policy.  There are some claims made about #7, but I cannot see what Gerda claims to; to me, it appears to have no mention of the hymn at all. That leaves two sources, #1 and #6, which are questionable, and a shaky basis upon which to rest Notability. As mentioned above under 'Discussion of sources', #1 was co-written by members of a Limburg parish church,  and might fall under WP:SPS as it is published by the local Church website. In any case, the authors are non-notable any published writing, independent or otherwise; maintaining that this one-page monograph written by the local parish spokesperson and published at the parish website (possibly by her) provides notability to the topic seems really a stretch to me.
 * That leaves #6, the source with the most direct reference to the article topic, imho: the Pastor's service notes, for 2018–2019. This is a month-by-month summary of the Pastor's choice of hymns that are appropriate for that month, and why. As it is the strongest source we have, I've translated it in its entirety, and added it above. The tone and substance of the writing is in the manner of a sermon, unsurprisingly. This is not independent commentary either about the lyrics, or about the music, by a notable author trained in either discipline, but an explanation by a clergyman of why this particular hymn was chosen to be sung in services during that particular month. This is not a criticism of his piece for what it is, but I don't believe it's the kind of independently published piece which we expect in order to establish notability for a poem, or a song. Also, it's self-published.
 * I would like to see multiple (three?) fully independent, secondary, reliable sources for this topic before declaring it notable. Why isn't there even one? And even at the level of self-published commentary by clergy or parish spokespeople, why aren't there hundreds of them, given the number of Christian parishes around the world, if this is a hymn of such importance? I don't see how one can claim Notability for this topic, but if I'm somehow missing something about policy and it is deemed notable, then it should be merged to Gotteslob (hymn book in which it appears), or to Helmut Schlegel (author) as it will never grow beyond a stub.  Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Mathglot (talk • contribs)  has already cast a vote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 21:49, August 29, 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't think it was a "vote" unless it's in the voting section, bulleted, and bolded. Struck the bolded word, replaced with "Comment". Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible taint
An issue possibly affecting evaluation of this Afd has been raised here. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance for the purposes of gauging notability, nor for evaluating !votes by others. I don't think there's any "taint" to this AfD at all. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no relevance for gauging notability, but disagree about the evaluation of !votes, however. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Now moot. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Helmut Schlegel where the hymn is listed among his works (it is not listed in the Joachim Raabe article, so Schlegel seems to be the obvious redirect) - the hymn is not notable enough for a stand-alone article - WP:NSONG says, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" - that doesn't appear to be the case here - there is no indication that the hymn has reached any kind of prominence or wide circulation or distribution or notability - Epinoia (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.