Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Worms


 * 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 redirect to You Are Happy.  Sandstein  12:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Song of the Worms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Individual poem, with no particularly strong claim of notability as a standalone entity in Margaret Atwood's overall oeuvre. It was apparently "recently read on an English television station by Lia Williams", without specifying what television station or when, and it was purportedly used in a school syllabus for one year and one year only, but none of this is reliably sourced at all except for the fact that the poem exists — and it doesn't speak very highly of this poem's notability that in 12 years of this article existing, nobody has ever felt the need to add it to the Margaret Atwood navbox at all (mainly because I think very few people ever actually knew the article existed at all.) Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, appears in a number of publications including Poetry magazine of Feb 1974, You Are Happy (1974) by Atwood, Selected Poems: 1965-1975 (1976) by Atwood, Wicked Poems (2004) by McGough and Layton; main text of a Teachers & Writers Magazine lesson plan, one of a number of Atwood poems studied at university, more needed for a standalone article?, would suggest at least a "redirect" to You Are Happy but although a notable work no article yet. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What we would need is third-party coverage about it, not just primary source metaverification of it. A redirect to You Are Happy would certainly be an option, if somebody who's more knowledgeable about Atwood's poetry than I am (I'm not much of a poetry guy, I'm much more familiar with her novels) can actually start one — but obviously it would have to be in place before we could redirect this there. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, "Meeow, meow, meeoooowww, "Yes, Mitskie, Atwood is a catlover but that doesnt mean that everything she writes is notable" "Meeow, meeeerooowwwrr!!", "i'm perfectly aware of point no.5 of WP:NBOOK but whether this should apply to atwood's works is probably for another discussion .... look, this poem appears in the book You Are Happy''; that is notable and i've just created a little wikiarticle on it so a redirect can be made, happy?", "PPPURRRRRRR....." Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to You Are Happy. I'm not seeing the independent coverage that could support a stand-alone article. Catrìona (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2018 (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.