Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hevenu shalom aleichem


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hevenu shalom aleichem

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm not really sure what to make of this, it's an interesting case of a song having a credible claim of significance/impact, but no real sigcov in RS. The article creator acknowledges as much at Template:Did you know nominations/Hevenu shalom aleichem; in the interesting of settling that nom, I'll punt on the notability question to here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's been the subject of scholarly literature (Troyke 2021, Frühauf 2021), covered as significant in media (Die Rheinpfalz, Deutschlandfunk), and is published in about 30 hymnals and songbooks (multilingual and German). It's undoubtedly popular and notable, as the results from the search links at the top here (books, news, scholar) demonstrate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Troyke and the two media sources don't provide significant coverage. I can't access Frühauf, so if you want to copy and paste the relevant passage, we can take a look at that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those four sources may not individually rise to significant coverage, but they each attest to the popularity of the song. I agree with 4meter4 who points out below that the sheer multitude of mentions, also demonstrated in the search results that I mentioned, constitute significant coverage. PS: I also think that nominating this song at this time is insensitive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. There's a large number of books in google books which acknowledge it as a well known Israeli folk song of cultural importance, or mentions its performance at notable/historic events. (some examples, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Additionally, this magazine article about the song states that it is sung by Jews worldwide and this website dedicated to songs of the Holocaust calls it a "Jewish standard" and includes it in a list of songs used by the ANU - Museum of the Jewish People. The newspaper article names it as a song commonly used at weddings by American jews. This book mentions that the tune was used by Felix Mendelssohn in his Symphony No. 5 (Restoration Symphony commentary on page 25), and this book mentions the song was used in Frank Ticheli's Angels in the Architecture. The work is included on pages 8, 9, and 15 in . This book mentions the songs gained popularity among Christians after Vatican II and this book ties the work's inclusion in Protestant hymnals to a mainstreaming of Isreali culture globally in the 1970s. This book mentions the tune actually predates Isreal and it of Hasidic origin (see page 194). Unfortunately the further commentary on 195 as indicated in the index is not viewable in google books. The song is also included in the Harvard Library's Judaica Sound Recordings collection according to  All together I think this constitutes SIGCOV collectively.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * are there a WP:THREE best? I'm not unsympathetic to the "lots of mentions=grab bag cobbled notability" argument, but there should be at least one source that goes into some detail about it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to reduce this unusual case of notability to a limited number of "best" sources misses the point of the "keep" arguments above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ While normally I would agree with WP:THREE as the best measuring stick at AFD, in this case some WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied to how we interpret WP:SIGCOV. Our WP:NSONG criteria is targeted towards popular commercial music and is honestly not well designed to handle traditional songs or music that comes from a different cultural place (i.e. music that was never intended to make money but is just part of a culture and its identity). In this case, we have an old traditional song whose melody dates back at least to the 19th century and possibly earlier that has become a "Jewish standard" at cultural events such as weddings, religious services, political rallies and events, etc. on a global scale. The song is ubiquitous in Jewish communities around the world as attested to in a wide range of sources. It's inclusion in museum and library collections, its publication in not only Jewish religious publications but also Christian hymnals, its inclusion in a scholarly work by the National Jewish Music Council, its use in other works of cultural significance such as Felix Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 5, its performance at events for American presidents, the Pope, etc., its performance by professional orchestras, recordings by musicians, etc. all attest to the work's wider notability as an important musical work for its broad impact on culture and its role in Jewish culture and identity. There's not a valid argument to be made here that this song isn't encyclopedic, and the wide range of reliable RS has made it possible to write a lengthy and interesting article which is verifiable and beneficial to improving wikipedia's coverage on Jewish culture.4meter4 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep (strong). Easy pass of the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It is extremely strange and troubling that a song of this stature would be nominated! Wikipedia already suffers from too many AfDs. There is no need to add baseless and chanceless AfDs to make things worse, and then argue with each respondent! gidonb (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2023 (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.