Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ô Canada! mon pays, mes amours
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep
No indication in this article that this is a notable song, except that it is NOT the national anthem. Lyrics should be at Wikisource. RickK 22:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. 68 unique google hits, a large portion of which are Wikipedia and its clones. Non-notable. Livajo 22:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: And take care that that funny mark over the O doesn't fall off and cause unnecessary punctuation. Not notable as a separate entity. Geogre 01:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Hello. I am the author of this page. I agree that the full lyrics of the song belong to wikisource. I did not know of wikisource when I created the page. A short excerpt should suffice for the article as it is with many other songs or books. This song is one of the most famous patriotic songs of 19th century French Canada (or Lower Canada, today Quebec). It has the same historical and cultural value as, let's say, Yankee Doodle for the American people. There are no more reasons to delete it than there are reasons to delete Yankee Doodle or any old patriotic song. Counting the number of hits a title gets in Google is not a very convincing way to determine the validity of a cultural and historical item. Anyways, I will add more paragraphs on it. I admit that it does not provide much information as it is right now. In the meantime, it can be tagged as a stub. -- Mathieugp 20:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'll agree with Mathieugp here -- the song is historically notable, but RickK is also right that the lyrics belong at Wikisource rather than here. Keep as stub, hopefully to be expanded with some of the song's historical context, but transwiki the lyrics to Wikisource or erase them. Bearcat 23:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Google is totally unqualified for determining the importance of a 170-year-old song that was popular enough to be recorded on some of the first-ever 10 inch gramophone records The Steve 11:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Please change your signature so that we can read it. If the article had SAID that this was on some of the first-ever 10 inch gramophone records, that would PROBABLY have swayed my decision to list it here. But we have to go by what the article says AT THE TIME IT WAS LISTED, not what somebody had wished it said. If the article were modified to make it clear why the song is notable, then it's worth keeping. RickK 19:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Please change your background to read my signature. One easy way to do this is to select it. All I'm saying is that a little less dependence on Google results and a little more research would be nice for an encyclopedia. The Steve 05:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Please change your signature so that we can read it. If the article had SAID that this was on some of the first-ever 10 inch gramophone records, that would PROBABLY have swayed my decision to list it here. But we have to go by what the article says AT THE TIME IT WAS LISTED, not what somebody had wished it said. If the article were modified to make it clear why the song is notable, then it's worth keeping. RickK 19:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I am Palestinian by birth, and now I am living in Canada, after we became refugees in 1967. My wife is from Quebec, and is also in agreement. This piece should be kept, and allowed an opportunity to grow and develop. French culture, especially songs and stories, are very important.
Lets give the contributors a chance to work on it. It is only fair. Anyway I thought that it was important to contribute articles not delete them, if there is no inherent problems. Please keep it. Joseph 02:03, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The contributor has five days from the time the article is listed here before it's deleted. If the article can't be made worth keeping in that time, then it should be deleted. RickK 02:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep this one. Antandrus 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep revised article. Btw I don't see that vfd voters have much, if any, obligation to do research that the original author couldn't be bothered to do. If a topic is notable, the best place to make that case is in the article itself. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No obligation whatsoever. However, in my opinion, no research makes for poor and uninformed encyclopedia writing. The Steve 03:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed entirely. That's why an author ought to do some research instead of bestowing a cryptostub on Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, my definition of writing includes editing and thus deletion. I do what I call notability research on everything I vote for, which is why I end up adding to a lot of Vfd articles. The Steve 23:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed entirely. That's why an author ought to do some research instead of bestowing a cryptostub on Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No obligation whatsoever. However, in my opinion, no research makes for poor and uninformed encyclopedia writing. The Steve 03:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- And all is good in the end. Let us now all kiss and hug and go back to recording humanity's knowledge! ;-) -- 13:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.