This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it has now been updated to document the importance of the subject. Actually, the claim was already there... the two tunes mentioned get 40,600 and 95,900 ghits respectively, and are among the most recognised 20th century hymns. You'll notice that Terry's book isn't just about 20th century hymns... Hosanna, Hosanna makes his list of the 100 all-time favourites. And Open your eyes gets even more ghits than it does. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Hosanna, Hosanna" "Tuttle" gets only "Page 4 of about 361 results (0.40 seconds)" GHits, "Hosanna to the King of Kings" "carl tuttle" gets 33 results (0.34 seconds) and "open your eyes" "carl tuttle" gets only 38 results (0.30 seconds) and the majority of those are not of substance. reddogsix (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links? So we can see exactly how you've structured those searches, and what you mean by not of substance?
I admit I'm a little surprised by the rush to delete this. Hosanna is sung, year after year, at almost every contemporary Palm Sunday service in Australia, across all denominations. One of the most enduring Christian songs of the century. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three earches are exactly as indicated. (i.e., "Hosanna, Hosanna" "Tuttle", "Hosanna to the King of Kings" "carl tuttle", and "open your eyes" "carl tuttle") Quotation marks included. Those lacking substance include lyrics, downloads, sheet music. It may or may not be sung at "every Palm Sunday service in Australia," but remember popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. reddogsix (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do the work for you... "Hosanna, Hosanna" "Tuttle"About 2,600 results (0.23 seconds). That's still impressive IMO, but if you feel that it's not enough ghits to be significant then we now need to ask, why so many fewer than my search above? And in any case, we need to ask, why are you getting so many fewer hits than I am for the same search? Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have included similar results and have Google set to display less than the max per page of results. If you remove similar results and display only the relevant results you get the number I indicate. You should may see the comment at the end of the search, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 356 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
It is not an issues of the number of GHits, it is an issue of the substance of those hits. So the number is not relevant, but the type of hits that matter. Lyrics, and youtube performances do not meet Wikipedia reference guidelines and are not substantial enough to support the article. reddogsix (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that lyrics sites and youtube performances do not count as reliable sources, in fact I've only yet cited one source in the article, and it's neither a lyrics nor video site of course, in fact it's not a website at all but rather a dead-tree source. Another reliable source would be A Companion to Together in SongISBN0646457128 which has bio notes on all contributors to TIS, but I don't have a copy to hand, and the online version is a pay site to which I don't subscribe.
But by support the article I assume you mean establish notability. Disagree that the number of different sites that carry a set of lyrics or video is irrelevant, as your restrictions would imply. In this genre, this is probably the closest we will come to an online record chart. It should be seen as that. We're not here using Google to find reliable sources, but rather as a very rough test of how widely known the song is. That's the only valid use of a ghit count.
Nor does counting pages seem to have any particular advantage over counting hits, or have I missed something? Changing the number per page as you suggest changes the number of pages only, and adds an extra complication. It doesn't change the data, it just makes it a little harder to interpret. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does one source (regardless of type) adequately support the article (meet the notability guidelines) - probably not. It should be noted that we are not able to establish the substance of the that reference - neither of us have access to the pay site.
The establishment of a lyric or youtube vid does not meet the criteria of WP:RS, it may serve to establish popularity, but popularity does not equal Wikipedia based notability.
I am not counting pages to establish or deny notability, I am looking at the substance of the GHits - none of which are non-trivial or of substance. If I have missed references of substance, please add them in and I shall support its inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
