Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All that is gold does not glitter

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 delete and redirect to All that glitters is not gold. Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All that is gold does not glitter

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

Short poem used as a plot element in a work of fiction. Aside for the titular line being used as a common quote, I can't find anything that demonstrates notability. Fails

WP:GNG and isn't really an independent work of poetry, so the notability guidelines for poetry don't apply here. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All that glitters is not gold as a likely misquote. Tolkien's poem is mentioned there already. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All that glitters is not gold#In popular culture This poem is a very minor part of The Lord of the Rings ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Halbared (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Halbared: I respect your !vote, but could you please explain your rationale for keeping the article? Hog Farm (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I had to look this up a while back and this page helped me answer a question. I looked at the other page, it doesn't have the info this one does. It has enough information pertaining only to the Tolkien poem that it was an aid to me and should be kept in case others need a page for similar queries. Halbared (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like Merge the useful information into whatever article we're redirecting to. 79.65.232.207 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — 79.65.232.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete poems are not inherently notable, especially when buried deep in a book. Repeating them does not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (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.