Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide in the Trenches

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. Although nom's withdrawn there's still a delete !vote present so can't really close under SK1 ...,Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in the Trenches

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

I cannot find much evidence of notability from my Google searches. DrDevilFX (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BKD A single 12-line poem from a book that in itself does not have an article, is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The book and the poem itself can be found at Wikisource: Suicide in the Trenches. That's where it belongs. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per — Maile Keep - Per Google books, Drmies is right, it seems notable based on the number of analyses and songs etc that have been written about it. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the nominator will try Google Books, so they can see this. This poem is ridiculously notable in its own right: it's heavily anthologized and widely taught and studies. I hope this will be withdrawn, despite my Googly kind of argument (to counteract the non-Googly rationale); if not, I'll have to come back and cite anthologies, critical studies, and JSTOR. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Drmies says, there's lots been written on it. I am in the process of adding some of these references to the article. Nominator would be well advised to look again at the searches. LadyofShalott 01:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being widely anthologized and studied is sufficient. Nom should be withdrawn to avoid wasting further time. ^Bongo_matic 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn from nomination: Since almost everyone here wants it withdrawn from nomination, I have decided to do so. DrDevilFX (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent move. Thanks to the onion lady it's looking OK now. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems I am late to the party, but I too feel the sourcing, while not excessively robust, supports a reasonable enough level of notability and impact for this entry to be kept. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've withdrawn the nomination, so why hasn't this been closed already? I see someone closed it, but later reverted their edit for some reason. DrDevilFX (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can't use the speedy close because this is still one good faith delete vote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (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.