Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 13 (2nd Nomination)

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. There were no voices to delete other than the nom. Tyrenius 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 13[edit]

There is nothing intrinsically notable about the chapter, and scholars treat the bible as a collection of narratives, and themes, rather than dividing it by chapter and verse (which are a mediaeval invention, anyway). Not one major encyclopedia, nor famous faith based encyclopedias (Jewish Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.), treats the bible in a chapter-by-chapter manner, and most scholars regard it completely inappropriate to divide it like this.

The article as it stands is nothing more than a collection of unrelated trivia, and this is all it is likely ever to be. It is true that parts of the chapter have been used at weddings, but that only makes the parts notable, not the whole thing as a unit, in the same way that alas poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio is an often used quote from shakespeare, but that doesn't mean we can justify an article concentrating on Act 5 Scene 1, all of Act 5 Scene 1, and only Act 5 Scene 1, of the play in question. (Delete/Merge - merge if anything is salvageable) Clinkophonist 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I fail to see your logic. This information is certainly better than no information. The fact no other encyclopedias do this is probably a fantastic reason for doing this. - Glen 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect/Merge to First Epistle to the Corinthians. If/when that becomes too unwieldy due to the analysis of each chapter added to the main article, then it should be split back out. But for now, it seems ok to merge it. Neier 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding a link to the previous AFD in May. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 13 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neier (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006. - where the result was Keep - Glen 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to clarify my vote. At a minimum, I think the article should not be deleted, but be preserved; be it in the article about the 1 Corinthians, or in a standalone article. I tend to favor the busting out of articles that can stand on their own from their parents, see main article XYZ, even when the sub-article is small. So if facing a choice between keep and merge, I would choose keep. Neier 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not every chapter of the Bible is independently notable, this one is. It is the most common reading at weddings, was read at the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, was the origin of the phrase "through a glass darkly". To Clinkophonist: the analogy with a Shakespeare play does not realy work. It's more akin to an individual sonnet, or perhaps Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't akin to a sonnet because it isn't a natural unit, the subject matter spans more than this chapter and/or breaks up within the chapter rather than spanning it; the "love" section starts at 1 Corinthians 12:31b and continues to 14:1b, and that it starts and ends half way through sentences demonstrates it was never intended to be a distinct unit. And what is worse is that the prophecy section seems to start at verse 9, i.e. the section that continues in chapter 14 starts in the middle of chapter 13, and the division that makes the love part mostly fit into its own chapter, rather than the prophecy part fitting into its own chapter is entirely arbitary. It is more akin to "lines 17-37" of a sonnet, where lines 17-37 are chosen for no notable reason other than that someone in the middle ages thought that lines 1-16 were a nice total size, and drew a line under them, then drew a line under 37 because lines 17-37 were about the same size. Clinkophonist 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WP is not paper, and this page is sufficiently encyclopedic in form. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is actually important (and much of what is there is not) into First Epistle to the Corinthians. - Nunh-huh 14:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it is commonly used in wedding then it is notable enough to deserve an article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a chapter of the most published and read book in history, that is commonly read in weddings...I think it's notable. Alphachimp ^talk 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as much as I am sick and tired of hearing that passage at every wedding I go to. Its "notability" (if such a thing is necessary) is quite clearly set out in the article. People may be interested to see that this was previously nominated for AfD on May 16. Agent 86 16:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This passed its AfD with a "keep" result just two months ago and the chapter has not lost its notability since then. The suggestion that only "parts" of the chapter are notable, not the chapter as a whole, is misguided because the chapter is only 262 words long in the New International Version translation. [1] The notable parts are basically all consecutive with each other. --Metropolitan90 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its notable because its well known due to its wide use Knowing Is Half The Battle 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was searching for (and found) this very page yesterday, which - to me - indicates a certain level of significance and usefulness in an encyclopedia. This article is, as Metropolitan90 noted, perpetually notable. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 23:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to First Epistle to the Corinthians. The information in this sub-article would be just as useful (and searchable) in the 1 Corinthians article. A separate article is unnecessary. --Wine Guy Talk 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per Wine Guy - fchd 10:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly Merge and Redirect). Here we go again! As stated last time: this is a key chapter from the bible which those interested in literature, irrespective of their own belief system, will want to know about. It should remain in Wikipedia in some form. By the way, has anyone spotted that this chapter is quoted in its entirety at charity ? And Clinkophonist's argument is factually wrong - the WHOLE chapter is usually quoted at weddings. Mattmm 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the only chapters of the Bible that has some notability as such (rather than as a pericope). Could be renamed to Love chapter if focus changed to 12:31b-14:1b or merged/redirected if necessary. Eluchil404 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't Merge No one cares about the whole First Epistle to the Corinthians. This particular passage is significant in culture (weddings) and literature, most recently with the film adaptation of PKD's A Scanner Darkly. -Nick 00:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this article passing previous AfD nomination. Certainly the notability and significance of a biblical passage thousands of years old could not have significantly diminished over the last two months. --Satori Son 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Weak Redirect/Merge -- definitely notable on its own. I think it might be more encyclopedic to keep the whole epistle together. This also reduces duplicate content and chances of POV forking. I'm almost neutral on this one.--A. B. 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- appears to be a notable passage, is used in Christian wedding rites. However, the current state of article is a train wreck and very non encyclopedic. A total rewrite would be recommended to remove any WP:OR and anything not WP:NPOV, so if an easier way to do that is with a delete, so be it. My personal rule of thumb is that the article should never be longer than the original subject text. -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge -- I think this is notable enough to stand alone. It is a very famous chapter and is read often. Needs to be cleaned up, though. Jesussaves 22:11, 21 July 2006 (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.