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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I Could Tell You (poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability (WP:GNG) criteria. The fact that it is a poem by a notable author does not IMO merit a stand-alone article (see for instance WP:BOOKCRIT for comparison). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: per WP:BKD (adapting for poetry), would suggest poem receive coverage as part of a parent article (like Collected Poems [1945] or the poet's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If WP:BOOKCRIT is used then the subject passes points 1, 4 and 5. If the WP:GNG is used then it passes with flying colours, as shown by the sources cited in the article and those found by searches such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources cited in the article consist of a personal blog, a poetry archive, and a reference about villanelles. The study guide is obviously more substantial. Some of the sources indexed in the link are trivial treatment - others not (Ferry 1996 and Miller 1981). I think my issue, thinking about it, is probably per WP:BKD - this would be better treated as part of the collection it originally came from (or as part of Auden's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those were not all of the sources cited in the article when you nominated it for deletion. There were also two books, including the study guide mentioned below. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned the study guide, and the second of the two books was the 'reference about villanelles'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This should never have been brought up for an AfD. The poem is covered in such a large number of academic articles and other books that I'm not going to attempt listing them all. Instead, I'll point out that Gale and Cengage Learning released a study guide for students covering only this poem. Let me repeat that: two of the biggest names in educational publishing released a study guide on this poem because it is so important. This poem absolutely meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amazon lists '3,000+' Gale/Cengage study guides, so I don't know that it's a particularly high bar for inclusion. There are other sources, for sure, but I'm not certain much of the coverage is not 'non-trivial' treatment (Ferry 1996 is an exception). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that 17 pages about the poem is trivial? If there are 3,000+ such study guides then that is 3,000+ instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a lot of scepticism about the worth of the Gale/Cengage series (it seems in fact to excerpt from their reference workPoetry for Students) (who are the authors?), but that said it probably does count as a 'non-trivial' work for WP:GNG purposes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to echo what Phil Bridger said and add that Gale and Cengage are gold standards as sources, especially with regards to literary topics. But since you want additional sources, here are a few: This New Yorker essay that references the poem, a Washington Post essay that does the same, a review in the Guardian where a poem by John Ashbery is compared to Auden's poem, a review of If I Could Tell You by Soumya Bhattacharya in Outlook India where it is explained Auden's poem inspired the novel's title -- these are merely what pops up in recent news searches for the poem. There are many, many more academic articles that reference or cover the poem. So again, this poem easily meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are so many, many books that cover this poem, some that cover Auden's works, and some that are specifically directed at this one (you can start with the GB link above provided by Phil Bridger). The subject passes WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very widely discussed in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on my own search, I found there is sufficient analysis to establish this poem as notable. [1] [2] [3] should be sufficient. And that's without considering the Gale/Cengage study guides. The number of such study guides that exist does not concern me-- I have no doubt there are 3,000 notable literary works... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are vast numbers of individual poems or individual pieces of music that are included in Wikipedia and are rightly not proposed for deletion. What is the point of eliminating valuable knowledge? A good number of people have edited and added to this page. The poem itself is not run-of-the-mill and is noteworthy among Auden's considerable output, as shown by the evidence provided above by other reviewers. In particular, being one of the half-dozen most successful examples of the villanelle form in the English language qualifies this as sufficiently notable. That is also the reason why it would be unhelpful and inappropriate simply to roll it in with a collection of other poems which just happen to have been published in the same volume. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Incidentally, thanks to those who have provided other useful references regarding this poem; if (as I hope), the article is retained, please feel free to add them to the article, which will hopefully avoid any future challenges that the references aren't sufficiently significant. Hyperman 42 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please be careful not to misconstrue nominations to AFD as destructive or other to the purpose of Wikipedia - I'd hardly give my free time to be anything other than helpful. The consensus is unanimous in favour of keeping and, even if I have concerns about some sources and would favour a different set-up (merging with the 1945 original collection, which itself doesn't have an article!), mine is very clearly not the majority opinion. I'd also like to thank those who've taken the time to contribute to the proposal. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.