Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seek ye first


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Seek ye first

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only seems to be found on lyric sites; nothing of a critical nature that I can find; this would seem to fail WP:NSONG. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, not notable, fails NSONG. --George AKA Caliburn &middot; (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Pachelbel's Canon as it's based on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the expert sleuthing from StAslem Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To clarify where to merge/redirect to
 * Merge / redirect per User:Ritchie333, except that possibly Gospel of Matthew would be a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * merge to Karen Lafferty, who wrote it. (Well, at least she wrote the first verse. I don't know if anyone knows where the second verse came from.) It is an incredibly well-known hymn, probably the most widely reproduced hymn of the 1970s, and I was able to find this account of how she came to write it, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep based upon the sources mentioned below. I have rewritten the article accordingly. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the cited sources, Hymnary, has several paragraphs on the background to the song's composition and a basic musicological analysis, originally in McKim. There are also several discussions of the song in Google Books, such as an academic text that discusses the song's financial success, citing another source not on the Web. There's also a source with more details of the song's composition, though I suspect it's self-published (& therefore not an RS). Also, I would question the applicability of WP:NSONG, which tends to assume the candidate song exists to make money in the commercial record industry. I would expect this song would be notable as a liturgical item just as much as a record release, but it's difficult to search through the vast number of quotations to the Biblical text that provides its title. If it gets merged, then Matthew 6 would be far better than Gospel of Matthew, but I agree with that Karen Lafferty would be the best option. Matt's talk 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per M.R.Forrester, or Merge to Karen Lafferty per Mangoe if no consensus exists to keep as a standalone article, per WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know the song well, and this is the first time I've heard it said that it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. We would want a very good source affirming that before we merge it to that article. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't have the right bass line to fit the Pachelbel rant. Mangoe (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help thinking of that when I saw this discussion: "Of course it's based on Pachelbel's Canon. Every song is based on Pachelbel's Canon..." StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. In fact, it easily passes WP:GNG. Both Albuquerque Journal and First Things  have published articles specifically on the song. It has also received significant coverage in other articles:  StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a terrible song IMO, but yes, it is certainly notable as demonstrated by the sourcing provided by StAnselm and others. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment Given that the outcome looks to be keep, I've moved it to the correct capitalization. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2017 (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.