Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AqBurkitt

Add links
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 was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AqBurkitt[edit]

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

AqBurkitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having trouble establishing this artifact is WP:GNG notable. It exists but the only source I found is a few sentences in [1]. At best I think we could try to preserve this by creating an article for the Taylor-Schechter collection, which would include a list of such fragments. But even if such a list existed, most of the current article is unreferenced anyway. Anyway, the issue is that academic / museal collections may be notable, but not every single exhibit is, and we apparently have quite a few similar pages (about single pages and such) that are not passing WP:GNG, I am afraid. Do correct me if I am wrong and if you can find that this artifact (page) has been a subject of some significant study or scholarly attention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are at least a few more sources. The University of Cambridge has several pages discussing the artifact (1; 2). The latter page lists three more sources: one used in the article already, the one found by Piotrus, and a 1978 article that, judging by the name, appears to be fairly on point: "Christian Palimpsests from the Cairo Genizah". One of the fragments was also displayed at the Met in 2012. This alone would suggest a level of notability, demonstrating that it's not just a piece of paper locked away in a climate-controlled basement somewhere, but an artifact specifically selected by a curator to tell a story at an exhibition. The Met and Cambridge descriptions also suggest reasons why these specific fragments are individually notable, such as including text from two known entities—the Greek scribe Aquila of Sinope, as well as Palestinian poet Rabbi Yannai. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usernameunique, The Met page suggests that this is a fragment of Cairo Geniza as does UoC catalog entry which confirms that this is 'Taylor-Schechter Cairo Genizah Collection '. Perhaps some integration there might be in order. Cairo Geniza is of course notable, but as the article states, it is composed of 400,000(!) fragments. WP:NOTPAPER but I am still not seeing what makes such fragments independently notable. I can't find anything about what makes this fragment particularly important - it seems they are just examples of the Cairo Geniza collection (I don't want to say random, as they are likely better-preserved ones etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, as discussed above, it appears to be notable as an artifact directly connected to both Aquila of Sinope and Rabbi Yannai—a fact that the Met and University of Cambridge focus their attention on. And while not every item owned by a museum is notable, those which are on display are more likely to be notable than those in a basement, and those handpicked for an exhibition are even more likely to be notable than those merely on display. Were its state of preservation actually the criterion the museums were using for display, as you suggest, there are plenty of better preserved items in the collection that would likely have been picked first (e.g., 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10).
By the way, I hope you enjoy the irony of invoking WP:NOTPAPER as much as I do, given that the discussion is over an actual piece of paper (er, vellum). --Usernameunique (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I'd be more happy to accept this artifact as significant if it was subject to in-depth coverage / studies as required by WP:GNG. That is still lacking. The fact that it was put on display means something, but not necessarily that the exhibit is encyclopedic. There is a ton of stuff in museums we don't have articles about, nor should we, because there is nothing substantial to be said about them. And if there is something substantial to be said about this piece of paper (vellum...), well, we should be able to find it. And as for connection to famous historical people - WP:NOTINHERITED... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about the manuscript not a particular fragment. It is especially significant in Biblical scholarship because of its great age. As for analogies, the tracing of the development of the Bible through numerous copies and translations is like the edit history of a Wikipedia article as each author may introduce changes and stylistic differences. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep - This may be significant, but we need sources (which clearly show significance). I don't see those, which is rather sad, but how can we justify keeping this article until sources are found? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading "keep" arguments, I changed my mind. Sorry Piotrus, but this one is a keeper for me also.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More such works that refer to this manuscript can be given. Not only scientific, but also popular or synthetic studies: 1) https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2017/08/16/how-did-we-get-the-old-testament-text/ 2) http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/synthesis/article/download/7718/7484 --Wiklol (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an assessment of the publishers of the copies of the manuscript collection: Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila: From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, Now in the Possession of C. Taylor: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." --Wiklol (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiklol, We would prefer scientific articles to popular. Anyway, in the academic work you cite, where is AqBurkitt discussed? The paper mentions work of Francis Burkitt, sure, but not "AqBurkitt". If this artifact is referred there under an alternate name, could you provide a relevant quotation? We are not talking about Burkitt's work in general (which is what the last source discusses) but a tiny fragment of it (one of many artifacts he found and analysed). As I said, the wider collection may be notable, but this is just a single part (page...) of it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus, Please, here it is: TS 12.184 and 20.50. --Wiklol (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wiklol, Thank you. I found a paragraph of three sentences discussing them in the first paper. This is a passing mention, focusing on description and it does not mention the significance of this document. If there is more please quote it, but for now, I stand by my view that those are minor artifacts that are not notable (but a part of a wider collection that is notable). It's the same logic as with a notable book - it doesn't make individual pages within it notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • So please see, if the article 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bible mentions the entire "collection" in terms of the obedience of the translation of Aquila, or whether "however, of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version." --Wiklol (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wiklol, Britannica talks about a codice discovered in 1897. But the one we discuss has been published about in this year (and our article doesn't say when it was discovered). Are you 100% sure we are talking about the same topic? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Piotrus Yes, I bought myself a book that writes about it, and that's right. --Wiklol (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wiklol, Which book? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Piotrus Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible writes that what was discovered in 1897, was published in 1897. In August 1897 a report of the new discovery was also in the press, unfortunately I do not have access to the paid archive. --Wiklol (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Wiklol, Fair enough, but I remain concerned that what is significant is the collection of multiple artifacts, not a single part of it. From what I see Burkitt's discovery and publication are concerned with more than just this single page (two pages?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Piotrus, Look, please The Jewish Quarterly Review, Apr., 1899, Vol. 11, No. 3 On three leaves there were two passages of the Bible in the Aquila translation (given in the article), the third part on the third leaf was not there, so it can't be something else that wasn't there. ("there were three leaves of a Hebrew palimpsest of the eleventh century"; "On closer examination it was recognized that the MS. contained two passages from Aquila's Greek version of the Bible.") Do you understand now? --Wiklol (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Wiklol, Interesting find. So you are saying that this paper (granted, 6 pages long from 1899, but academic nonetheless) is all dedicated to the artifact in question?. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Piotrus, Yes, there is a comparison here with other versions of the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek, with the Aquila translation provided in these passages. A lot of important information about the meaning of this manuscript is already in the sources for the article, many others I will not have access to, because they are paid. But there is quite a lot of similar work to this, I have so much open in my computer, that I already have problems with the performance of the equipment. Here, for example, it is important: 1) "Aquila's relation to the LXX can now be more closely defined on the basis of the Cairo fragments", 2) "Small as the Cairo fragments are, they are still of priceless value for the criticism of the traditional Hebrew text and of the LXX. A comparison with the Masora Text shows that Aquila's text is, in general identical with the text known to us to-day.", 3) "a manuscripts of this translation lay long in Cairo, and that from this manuscripts a few leaves were saved in the Synagogue Geniza, and have now been so worthily given to the world by Mr Burkitt.". --Wiklol (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an encyclopedia of knowledge not just a pop culture fansite. Ridiculous this sort of thing would be sent to AFD. Dream Focus 02:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let me to express the following reasons:
    1. Notability#General_notability_guideline "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content": Few fragments of Aquila's translation exist, and the few that do exist have been given importance for understanding the transmission of the Hebrew Bible and inter-relationship between various significant ancient versions and recensions of the Old Testament (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Jewish Encyclopaedia).
    2. This manuscript has been important in discussions, due to the presence of the name of God YHWH and the nomina sacra, for scholars of the Old Testament, Jewish studies, New Testament, Early Christianity, Hellenism, Church Fathers.
    3. Notability#General_notability_guideline "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material": i.e. F. C. Burkitt and Edmon Gallagher dedicated a specific study to this manuscript [2][3].
    4. Notability#General_notability_guideline "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability": Currently the manuscript has references from renowned scholars and high-quality publishers (see current version ).
    5. The article can be expanded, but instead of being deleted, it can be kept with a tag that asks it (although in my opinion it doesn't currently need them).
    6. I don't know if there are other reasons for deleting this article on the English wiki [4].
In my opinion, this article should remain. Let me ask for help from someone who has contributed a lot to wikipedia with manuscripts (@Leszek Jańczuk:), whose help can be valuable.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectable Piotrus, is very easy to go to the article and read the references pointing to the bibliography, in the article.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much sense in copying the bibliography from the article and bringing it here. Anyway, please see point 3 of my previous comment and the sources.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of the reader, I mention that Burkitt's work dedicated to the manuscript under discussion for deletion here, was republished in 2012 by Cambridge University Press [5].--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cordially invite you to read the article (33 + facsimils pages dedicated to the AqBurkitt) which is not about the Taylor-Schechter collection. In any case, this manuscript is mentioned in reference works. It is not because I say so, the sources confirm it.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • undecided. On the one hand this manuscript is noteworthy. Of the 400,000 or so manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah there is a reason why this one was published already 1897 and others were not and probably will never be published in print. It is one of the very few extant manuscripts that present the translation of Aquila. That alone makes it at least as notable as all the articles on Septuagint or New Testament manuscripts which we keep in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the article is a typical example of the "work" of user Jairon who is not interested in the manuscript but in his mission about the tetragrammaton. In its present state the article doesn't do justice to the importance of the fragment. Deleting it would be a small loss. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. The article has been expanded, and some new sources and arguments have made me conclude this topic may be notable. And nobody else seems to argue for deletion anymore, so... let's close this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 29 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AqBurkitt&oldid=1003769167"