Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 12:47Z

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1[edit]

This article, and the other articles created for individual chapters of the book, contain cut-and-pasted translations of the chapters of Jerome's books, not articles about them. The main article, De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), has ample space for anything that needs to be said about Jerome's book, and it duly links to the external website where the entire translation can be read, sans typos even. Any content could also be considered for the Wikipedia articles on the various persons covered, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing that would pass muster for any articles actually monitored by Wikipedia editors. Note that the editor admits that he's adding these biographies from Jerome because "each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)." Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources a user wants to offer the public in support of his original theories, should be offered on his own website, not in the Wikipedia article space. No idea what original theories are at stake for the user exactly, but it seems to involve decoding Jerome's text with the "Petrarch Code"; known agendas include the claim that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century (see further User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code for the claimed codes hiding in the letters of words in English translations of Petrarch, etc.). Wareh 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my god delete... quick kill it (per WP:NOT). Nardman1 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT or at least merge to De viris ilustribus in so far as salvageable Alf^Photoman 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect if it cannot be re-written to meet our standards. But see my discussion with the author -- he was unaware of the wikipedia conventions when he began this exercise. Deb 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what Wikipedia is not; possibly redirect to De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)? Kyra_~(talk) 15:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the chapters in Jerome's De viris illustribus are about specific people in Christian history. Information from Jerome's biographies belong in their biographies, not in individual articles about chapters of his book. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. The material is so undigested that there seems to be nothing ready for incorporation in other articles. I don't think the "Chapter X" article names should be kept, even as redirects, since once this is cleaned up nothing will link to them, or would (and because it's hard to know whether to send them backwards to the book article or forwards to the articles on the biography subjects; surely "Jerome says of Polycarp in his De Viris Illustribus..." will be more appropriate than keeping these as usable redirects; I'll clean up the links if needed). Wareh 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent article De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) is also thoroughly unsatisfactory, in that it is cluttered up with links to the above series of articles, which should be trimmed from it. Wiki is not the place for reproducing texts; furthermore, are the translations not still in copyright? Peterkingiron 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what Wikipedia is not; dubious agenda regarding authorship of the NT now evident.Brian0324 15:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify: Move these articles to WikiSource. --Kevinkor2 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my Defense, here are my counter-points:

1. Since the point is that these links to these particular Chapters (i.e. Simon Peter) are basically a "cut and Past" or a "dumping" of text then it shouldn't be there. Apparently then the proper procedure is that a link should be provided to a website that has the English translation of this text. Sounds like the same thing to me. Apparently it is proper to link to the outside world to the text, however it is not proper to link to a Wikipedia English translation that is similar text. That doesn't seem to make sense. If one is allowed, then why isn't the other allowed, which is basically the same thing? Basically the ONLY difference is that one is an "External Link" while the other is an "Internal Link" to basically the same translation.
2. If there is some sort of "original research" in my English translations of these Chapters (which is supposedly just a "cut & paste" and just a "dumping" of text); then wouldn't a reference to a website that has an English translation of basically the same thing be then "original research" material - since it is basically the same translation off the Latin of Jerome's authors that he wrote up as short biographies? How is it then that it is implied that mine is "original research" while basically the same text when linked "externally" is NOT?
3. The wording in the beginning of my article describing De Viris Illustribus and on top in small print on each of these Chapters was taken from the last item in the article on Jerome of "Historical writings". This wording and information has been in Jerome's article since March of 2002 (5 years) and has been allowed with no objection. I am just using the same wording and information. There is nothing "mysterious" here and it is not "original research". I am just working from another Wikipedia article (which is something that is allowed)= Jerome.
4. This article of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) is almost identical in wording, format, style, and general concept to De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) that I wrote up some time ago, that has never had any objections to it. It has been edited by some other editors (very familiar with the subject) and basically all they edited was of minor edits (i.e. change of a category, spelling, typo's, minor word additions). There is nothing of "original research" here nor is there anything that is a "mystery". Simply following what has been previously allowed in other articles that have been around for a long time, even to the point of making a list of biographies. Another example of that is Giovanni Boccaccio's biographies On Famous Women which happens to link to approximately 30 - 40 articles that are "stubs" that have no references or sources even where the material came from. That article itself doesn't even have a reference or source; but has been around for years. Where did that list of "Famous Women" come from? Is it a list that someone just made up? What is its accuracy? Can anyone check to be sure this is the true list of "famous women"? No! It is just a list of names someone made up, however it is allowed. Why? The quality of my articles are far better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Coldwell (talk • contribs)

Comment. Both De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) and On Famous Women link to biographical articles that do not consist of primary texts, but are in the form of encyclopedia articles, so that I don't see that they are questionable by the same criteria that have been applied here. I'm not sure whether I know how to help resolve the confusion between an encyclopedia and a primary source, except to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that primary sources are not encyclopedic content, so that, yes, there are very different standards for articles and for linkable primary texts. The translation of Jerome's book is probably public domain but is not accompanied by any bibliographic information, so someone would have to find the same translation in a library (or get better information from newadvent.org) to confirm the text's copyright status, if it is to be brought to Wikisource (not Wikipedia). And a point of clarification: I am not calling WP:OR on anything, although I have pointed out that the article author's original research seems be driving the selection of content that goes beyond the normal bounds for other reasons. Wareh 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the key words here are "primary texts" verses just plain "biographical". Didn't realize there was a difference and that they should be handled different, however technically apparently there is. I have therefore taken out the links to the biographies that I did and put it back to just a list of the names (with no links). After you confirm what you need to confirm, then perhaps you will put Jerome's individual biographies on Wikipedia source (from whichever translation you think is appropriate). Meanwhile, did you look into the Reference source On Famous Women. There doesn't seem to be one, should there be? Also these link to approximately 30 - 40 "stubs" that do not have references or sources of any types (apparently this way for up to 5 years now for many of them). The quality of these "stubs" that are years old are very poor. The quality of my articles are of a very high standard. Now of course I am biased, however you might want to check them out. They are all listed on my User Page under "Articles I started". Now this article of "De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)" is just like De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has never had any objections from the onstart. This should now pass as an acceptable quality Wikipedia article.--Doug ^talk 19:07, 12 March 2007 (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.