Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banishment in the Bible

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. This was close to being no consensus (in which case it would have default to being kept anyway), but I think there was a clear trajectory to the debate, in which more information and sources kept being injected, persuading more and more editors to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment in the Bible[edit]

Contested Prod. Article is ~~half~~ possibly copyright violation and half original research. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article sounds more like an entry in a topical Bible than like an encyclopedia article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was really on the fence with this one. First, I do not believe you could delete under copyright for the fact the Bible is not copyrighted. If so, the Gideon's would be in a heap of trouble. As for original Research, you maybe able to make a small case. But than again, is quoting the Bible original research and the author provides the source of the information? Finally I looked at Lists to see if it could fall under that category. My personal feelings is that, as quoted from Guideline's; “…The list may be a valuable information source.” In that this could be considered valuable information, in that it does provide a list of information that an individual may search for, it does meet with Wikipedia requirements. Thanks Shoessss | Chat 14:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some translations of the Bible are under copyright. The New International Version is one such translation. However, it is not the one being used here, and copyright issues were not the reason why I went with delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No, I realize that and recognize your concerns. I was more trying to address the points that IronGargoyle made. To be honest, this one can either way. Nevertheless, as many know here, I am more of an includetionist (yes made up word) and will typically express an opinion to keep rather than delete when article is on the fence. Especially when an editor has spent a lot of time and energy in developing a piece that has no clearcut reason to delete. Hope this clarifies my keep opinion. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The King James Bible is in the public domain. Also, I concur with Shoessss in the belief that this is useful and valuable information. While it's not very pretty and could use some wikification, there's no reason to delete it on that account. Cel ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do review WP:USEFUL. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It could be a public domain translation is being used, but that does not change the fact that the rest is original research and it is also unencyclopedic. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a fine line between OR and common sense. I think it falls under the latter. However, here are some things to verify the information provided. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. We don't have sources for this selection of verses (rather too broad for the title, IMO) and so the selection is by definition original research. Possible usefulness is second to that problem, I think. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the copyright concerns, I completely fail to see what this article is doing here. Basically it's just a (still very incomplete) list of quotes on one subject. What's next? 'Marriage in the Bible'? 'Animals in the Bible'? This can go on until Armaggedon. Rien (talk\stalk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - In fact there are articles here at Wikipedia such as Animals in the Bible. Remember Wikipedia is not bound or limited by the amount of paper we need or use. Rather the philosophy is to provide the free dissemination of information for individuals looking for information. The exclusion of information because we may not agree with it or find it trivial is Opinion and by my standards not a valid reason for deletion. Thank goodness for consensus.Shoessss | Chat 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I don't find it trivial and/or un-agreeable, I just think it's an incomplete list of quotes that could go on forever without any use for anybody. Like the suggestion below, if it discussed reasons or historical/religious backgrounds of banishment, fine. But it doesn't. It's an index, no more, no less. Rien (talk\stalk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic has no encyclopedic notability of its own outside of the context of the Bible itself. SWik78 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I believe that this topic (as well as Rien's suggestions of Marriage and Animals) could well deserve an encyclopedic article which discussed the reasons for banishment, contrasted actual with threats, etc. (assuming appropriate secondary sources could be found, of course). But is just a list and doesn't feel to me that it belongs. I am not concerned that the current content is OR any more than List of fictional penguins or many other lists--additional editors can add or remove entries. There are no novel conclusions or syntheses in the article as it currently stands. Ma^t_chups 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well I've slightly surprised myself by wanting to keep on this one. If somebody wanted to research this topic, where else would they go but an encyclopedia? It's factual and could be useful. (I'm an atheist by the way, so no COI.) Annamonckton (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it's a valid topic, and I'm reluctant to say delete, I can't vote keep either. It's unreadable. Some of the problem could be solved by fixing the form of the citations (refer to "Genesis Chapter 3" section for a proposed revision). Still,

I think that it would require a massive rewrite to bring it up to the standards of an encylopedia. Ultimately, it's more of an insult to have someone rewrite your article beyond all recognition. Mandsford (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is just a list of quotations from the Bible which each have something to do with banishment, along with a sentence putting each in context. It's not written in an encyclopedic style, and the article makes no attempt to establish banishment as a Biblical concept in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have added an opening statement to the article to establish the context of the piece. Hope this helps. Shoessss | Chat 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for this to be a valid encyclopedic topic, you must first show (and I'm sure this isn't impossible) that scholarly research has been conducted on the subject and has produced material on it. Yes, God banished people in the Old Testament. However, it's not enough to simply pull verses out of the Bible showing that and collect them together here - we call that OR. Biruitorul (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I take it you did not view the article, in that the first cite is from a Scholarly work? In addition, I believe you will find more than enough academic papers, regarding this specific topic, as shown here – [1]. I do not mean to sound conferential, but have to ask – what defines an encyclopedic article? I always viewed that concept as someone looking for reference. Hence go to the encyclopedia and hopefully that is Wikipedia Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did view the article! The first cite is from Hobbes' Leviathan and the cited passage says absolutely nothing about the Bible. And no, the Google Scholar link does not show articles devoted to the subject. It may show papers that happen to have both words in them, but please show me a paper that actually treats the subject at hand. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which relies on primary and secondary sources. Occasionally, primary sources are enough, but here we need the intermediate filter of secondary sources that show others have thought of this connection before the Wikipedia article's authors did. Right now, one could very easily go to an online Bible search and derive the same "benefits" offered by this article. Biruitorul (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am sorry that out of 10,900 hits on Google Scholar with the specific search criteria of Banishment Bible you found no sources that fulfilled you requirements. Therefore, I tried a secondary filter of Banishment & Exile and found several sources that reference that specific topic. Now I am not sure how you view Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Journal of American History and several other sources as shown here [2], but personally I see them as independent – verifiable – reliable and 3rd source references. Just pointing out the sources :-) . Shoessss | Chat 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that still proves nothing. The GILJ article is about Britain, and mentions in passing the Bible authorised capital punishment. The JAH article is about the Irish. In fact just two of the sources are Biblical in theme. Certainly, both discuss the fact that Adam, Eve and Cain were banished, and the significance that had for them and us. However: a) those individuals' banishment is extensively discussed in the articles on them, and b) just one quotation is on Adam (and Eve implicitly) - aside from the fact that it doesn't even mention Cain, all the other quotations are from later in the Bible, and we're still left without scholarly backup for that. Better just let people thumb their Bibles rather than string together these random quotes for them. Biruitorul (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and because it's basically original research, with no evidence of widespread scholarly analysis of this subject. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete OR Chris! _ct 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regret, Delete unless the article is rapidly improved, but do not salt. This is a valid topic, which could be the subject of an interesting article, but this is not an encyclopaedia article in its present. It is merely a list of Biblical quotations, probably derived from a concordance. There is no reason why an article on this subject should not exist, but the sources quoted should be articles in Bible Dictionaries or other encyclopaedias, no doubt periodically with suitable biblical citations (for which there are templates). However, this article cannot survive in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and add material. Just add something describing the topic, not just quoting the verses and adding a little material from websites. Should be easy enough to do.I dont think it OR, since the material added probably came from the cited websites & needs more exact referencing. But there are much more authoritative sources than those. DGG (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible article potential but there is currently no encyclopaedic content. I might change my view if there was a complete re-write with content basen upon reliable secondary sources which are linked together by more than editor synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and radically alter. The quotes have to go - as someone said before, WP is not a topical Bible - but the first paragraph is a good starter stub for an interesting and notable subject which should have an article. Mr. IP (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment – I have been working on the article over the last day or two and have made, what I believe are, improvements on content and formatting. Please comment on whether this has influenced anyones opinion. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you put a big amount of work into that and I commend your effort, and I don't want to sound dismissive. However, to my understanding at least, it seems like mostly narrative, retelling various episodes in the Bible. Moreover, you're just duplicating text from other parts of Wikipedia for a large amount of the article. For instance, under Exodus 30, the part about Aaron comes from Aaron. Under Leviticus, you just dumped text from Leviticus. First, it's silly and unproductive to duplicate text like that: once is enough. Second, and more important: what has any of this got to do with banishment? It's just padding that says a lot about random parts of the Pentateuch but nothing on the purported subject, banishment. So, good effort, but I still say delete. Biruitorul (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Replied on User talk page, not to take away from any further Afd discussions. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Personally I'm so not interested but this is a subject of Bible scholars and can certainly be handled to wikipedia standards even if the current version is wanting. Per AfD if an article can be improved through regular editing then it is not a good candidate for AfD. This article can and should be improved. Deleting useful content doesn't help the project. Benji boi 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me also clarify that seemingly every aspect of the Bible has some scholarly research and this is hardly an exception. here's a few for those looking. Benji boi 16:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some nice cleanup/wikify/etc. tags, very much per User:Benjiboi. Some of this is OR, fine: leave the article and let's replace the OR with well-sourced statements. More important is that the article topic itself is not OR, and the first few references for the article establish that this is indeed a researched topic. Deleting is not the answer if we think this to be a "potentially useful" article that just "isn't there yet": there is currently a framework of useful summary information and biblical quotations that would be tedious to reproduce, which gives potential editors something to work with in trying to improve this article. Otherwise, starting with a blank slate, this topic would be much more difficult to get off the ground. Call this a work in progress, leave it be, and re-list in another six months if it's still nothing but a list. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research synthesis. If you can find secondary sources that assert that this topic is one that has received critical analysis, then by all means start an article on the subject. However, "banishment" is just one of the many things that happens in the Bible and I cannot find any secondary sources which assert banishment is any more worthy an article than, say, Snakes in the Bible or Skullduggery in the Bible. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry – I do not think we are talking about what is more worthy or less worthy of inclusion. But rather, if this topic should be included in Wikipedia. As some may have noticed, I have been working to improve the piece. Is it anywhere near completion, sorry to say no. However, concerning secondary sources, I can answer that question in the positive. Here is a link [3], showing search criteria under Google Scholar on Banishment in the Old Testament. Reading through the links provided, there are several worthy papers concerning this topic specifically. That is my opinion. Others may differ. To the closing administrator: If the consensus is to delete, please archive a subpage on my talk page. This is not a way to get around removing the article, but more so that I could work on the piece and resubmit with a more structured theme at a later time, without losing the work already expended. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a Google Scholar link, but none of the papers seem to advance your theory that the subject has been treated by academics. Could you please show specific instances of where that may be the case? Biruitorul (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging in the library for you. The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament by H.W. Robinson has an entire chapter on banishment. Encountering Ancient Voices: A Guide to Reading the Old Testament by C.L Carvallo also has quite a bit dedicated to the topic. For those of you who can't or won't go to a library, here is an excerpt from a paper. this is another paper that discusses banishment as a solution for the unclean via Leviticus. There's several of these out there, you just have to look for them rather than immediately discount them as non-notable because they don't show up on your google scholar and google news searches immediately. It's really an endemic... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment is an obvious theme in story of the Garden of Eden, as well as in the explanation for souls making it to hell - I'm sure there must be sources that deal with the theme of exile in at least these contexts, enough to satisfy ourselves that this topic is indeed touched upon by secondary sources. As a comment to ScienceApologist: though Snakes in the Bible might simply be a list of Bible verses, I see no reason why Skullduggery in the Bible could not exist (although perhaps under a different name, since I suspect you chose that one for comedic effect). Both trickery and banishment are common themes in the Bible which serve recurring and important roles throughout otherwise often disjoint stories. The study of such prevalent and common themes is no doubt of some interest to theologians and students of literature, so assuming we can get some sources, I see no impediment to having articles on either subject! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the sources identified by Celarnor provide the basis for an article on this topic. The rewrite by Shoessss has started the process of making a reasonable article on the topic. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi. Looks like sources exist. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2008 (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.