Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail, The Psalms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 wasdelete, as WP:CSD#A1/A3 if nothing else--one sentence stub without assertion of notability. If someone wants this content for an article I will undelete it without a deletion review, but I think it could just as easily be recreated. No prejudice against a sourced future version with citations of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 02:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grail, The Psalms

Grail, The Psalms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can't assess the importance or significance of this book. Low G-hits (3) but that's not unusual for an apparently out-of-print book first published in 1963. This is a listing I found for it: "The Grail, The Psalms: A New Translation from the Hebrew Arranged for Singing to the Psalmody of Joseph Gelineau. Ramsey, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1963" I think it's non-notable but this isn't really an area of interest for me. Pigman 00:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Grail Psalter is indeed a very important work for the Anglican and Roman catholic churches in the 20th century, and is EXTENSIVELY used. You can buy the 1993 version here: http://www.giamusic.com/search_details.cfm?title_id=3618 More additions to this article are to come. The Grail Psalter was a very integral effort in liturigical renewal, and involved the work of several well known translators and poets (T.S. Eliot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarkf (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Does the '93 version have an ISBN? - Che Nuevara 19:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are umpteen translations of the Psalms and I'm unaware that this is a particularly significant one; if it were, there would be more ghits.--Bedivere 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as possibly notable, needs more cites. The argument about Ghits for a book from 1963 lacks common sense, as Google wasn't invented until the 1990's. Bearian 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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.