Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hymns and Hymn Tunes – "Marriages"


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hymns and Hymn Tunes – "Marriages"
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is an absolute essay, pure WP:OR, and not written in the style of an encyclopedic article. I am unable to find any appropriate title for an article written like this, and keeping this title as a redirect is clearly the wrong thing to do, as the article title now would never be used in a search. I suggested right away to the editor that userfying is the right thing to do, but I forgot about this article until now. We don't have WP:CSD reasons to speedily delete essays, as I tried with this one, but there is a discussion to add some. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep or merge - the article is well cited and is not OR, with the exception of a couple of paragraphs. It is about a real and notable area of specialism. There is a problem with the style in some places, and a better title should be found - but those are reasons for improvement, not reasons for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't there just be a "wedding" section on the hymn article? I see no reason why this article exists separately. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 13:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this article is nothing to do with weddings or marriages at all! I believe we both agree that the title is a problem :) The article is about the relationship between hymns (which are strictly just words) and hymn tunes. Apparently these actually are referred to as "marriages" sometimes. Thparkth (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I read this, the more it becomes a pure essay paper and encyclopedic nonsense. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remember that neither article quality (per WP:AQU) nor the relative obscurity of the topic (per WP:OBTOP) are considered good reasons for deletion. In my opinion, you haven't (so far) given any reason in terms of Wikipedia policy or guidelines, why the article should be deleted rather than flagged for cleanup. Thparkth (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where article deletions are discussed. We'll let others chime in on the clear WP:OR, the essay-nature of the article, and its topic that is not encyclopedic. This is a research paper, and it reads like one. 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be a pest, but could you give an example of the "clear WP:OR" in the article? Thparkth (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This would appear to be at least partially redundant to the article Hymn tune, and as such a possible content fork.  No opinion yet as to whether merger or deletion would be best, as both articles are rather long. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge -- This article appears to be a content fork of Hymn -- I believe the project would be best served by merging any unique content to that article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge would be a good way forward, but be aware that Hymn Hymn tune and Hymnal are all possible parties to the merge, and Hymnal in particular is very stubby. Thparkth (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The term, "marriages" needs clarifying; I have added a paragraph explaining, "Why the term, 'marriages"?" hopefully to explain the significance it embodies.

Wikipedia has its article on "Hymn" which is valid for obvious reasons. It is definitely long enough without a new identifiable independent factor added to it. There is now an article on "Hymn tune," and the important independence of the two has only recently been acknowledged by Wikipedia articles. The third factor, which I regard as of great importance, is how the hymn and the hymn tune two come to be linked together. The term frequently used to describe the linking process, is "marrying" or "wedding" the two. The term crops up in research materials relevant to hymns, tunes, hymnals, hymody, hymnology, etc. The parallel to marriage is apt, but using the term has confused some to think of "wedding music." Consequently, a paragraph explaining why the term is introduced in the article will help aim readers in the right direction, and hopefully prepare them to recognize the term when they do further research on the subject.

Please Note: Wikipedia has over 60 hymnals identified for future articles. "Hymns,"  "Hymn Tunes,"  and "Hymns and Hymn Tunes - "Marriages" are subjects vital to all 60 of those articles.  Rather than burying the diligent work of editors of all those books, I would say it is best to put these three facets of hymnody right out front where the layman, not already familiar with or thinking about what the editors of those books do, will gain insight into their work through the focus on this aspect of what's on his hymnal's pages.

When you sing hymns, consider the great significance not just of the text/words/hymn, not just of the tune/melody, but also of how well they fit together, how well they support each other, how they enable the Christian to SING his praises, as instructed in the Bible. And think, too, of HOW text and tune got together, of WHO found them, evaluated them, saw the rightness of how they fit together, and then put them together in a hymnal. It's a third factor behind what's on the hymnal page.... And it's undoubtedly behind the success or failure of what's on the page....Hymnlover (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-18-10


 * Merge to Hymn. Content fork. Definition of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.    talk 01:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and retitle. A notable concept, and there are other general concepts in this field that could well be discussed similarly. there's an immense literature.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - What an incredible instance of original research. Articles for deletion is about articles not topics. Even if DGG would re-create the article in a fantastically sourced version, it wouldn't have this name, nor would it involve this text. None of this appears to meet notability. Really. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Genuinely curious about what part of the article you consider to be original research? Most of it looks attributed or attributable to me. Thparkth (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A comment made on the Discussion page of the article discusses the validity of this article. Ths use of hymnals is widespread; this is an insight into the work of editors. It describes an important aspect of "Hymns" and "Hymn tunes," relates to both and is independent of either one. Please see the "Dicussion" at Hymns and Hymn tunes - "Marriages". Hymnlover (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-21-10


 * Note: I think the bottom line is that some of the information here is legit, but there are so many things wrong with this (starting with the title). This article definitely needs to be scrapped, and anything relevant should be in Hymn, Hymn tune, or Hymnal; and/or much of those need to be merged. My opinion is that hymn, hymn tune, and this article should be reviewed and merged, while hymnal would remain its own article (as the topic "hymnal" is about collections of hymns, not about the hymns themselves). &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research/essay. The process of matching words with tunes to create a hymn may be a skill of interest, but it should be a section within Hymn. Anyhow, there is no way anyone would figure out from the article title that this is what the article is about. Personally when I saw this title I was going suggest changing it to List of hymns about marriage. Shall we say, it's an example of a poor marriage of words to intended meaning? --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2010 (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.