Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus 21:12

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. That is, delete without prejudice to recreation as an actual article about the Bible verse, rather than as a compilation of its translations. Sandstein 06:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 21:12[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't bibleipedia CTJF83 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. And aside from the possible cut and paste job from Biblos, the view given of the text is not directly supported by the reference but appears to be an expression of one individual's religious position. The web offers us numerous opportunities to expound our beliefs, but Wikipedia is not one of them. AJHingston (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I don't think that anyone holds copyright for the Bible, but it does indeed seem to be one individual's unsupported interpretation of the Bible — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many English translations of the Bible are indeed copyrighted. Public domain editions can be translation into other languages and then copyrighted. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: "ditto"AerobicFox (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - actually, several organizations do have copyrights on their own translations of the Bible. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Jus da fax 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everyone here. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of Biblos's compilation of translations of this bible verse (i.e. using the exact same group of translations in the same order). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Just to let everyone know that I removed all the copyrighted material on the page. I think the rest of the text meets G1. Minima c (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio and a really, really bad idea for an article. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that the copyvio concerns are overblown: All the texts are either public domain or allow brief excerpts for commentary, which this is. Once we get past these concerns, there's a real possibility that sufficient RS commentary exists to sustain an encyclopedia article on this one passage. Failing that, it can be Redirected in lieu of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this one more notable than any other? CTJF83 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, most individual Bible passages are notable. Consider: Google Scholar. Enough RS to write an encyclopedia article? Sure. Is the current state of the article even close? Nope. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:QUOTEFARM. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of thousands of well-known passages from the Bible, which are not in themselves notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for the reason the nominator cites (there are many articles based on Bible verses and chapters, so that's not the issue here). The reason this lot has to go is pretty simple, it's utter gibberish and mish mash in violation of WP:NOR; WP:NONSENSE; WP:MADEUP; and probably WP:HOAX as well. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Strong Delete: ditto?" Sheesh. Copyvio concerns, probably mistaken in any case, are nullified by the removal of the offending material. After that, most delete votes here amount to WP:IDONTLIKE, methinks. Anarchangel (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First as to the "copyvio" claim - sourced quotes of short nature are not copyvios (noting I am looking at current article). The KJV is, in fact, under "perpetual copyright." Scratch that as a reason for deletion. Is the particular sentence "notable"? is the only criterion for deletion remaining. It is, however, often found in discussions about the death penalty - vide the NYT [1] 7 March 2001. Thus it is independantly notable onits own, and not just as one sentence in the entire Bible. Collect (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In and of itself, this verse is not notable. The information (although not the extensive list of translation) could easily be added to an article on the death penalty, or Exodus, or the Mishpatim as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without OR) or delete without prejudice to recreation. We don't cover "Bible-cruft" but most biblical verses probably do have good solid credible coverage - and secondary analysis - in multiple reliable sources. I don't have a strong view on covering all bible verses but a good case could be made that we should. (For instance at the risk of touching on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we have full articles on every episode of many TV series that got much less coverage in WP:RS than 2000 years of biblical analysis). Copyright doesn't seem a problem - most translations of Exodus are not copyright in the United States and even if one or two are, a single verse would not be breaching copyright (at worst fix it). The problem is that this is an appallingly poor stub (as others also said). It's a translation list with what appears to be a brief personal view. Either remove original research/unbalanced views and allow eventualism to expand the stub with analysis and balanced commentary, or delete without prejudice for now. Same net effect. As a valid article could surely be written, no real benefit to deleting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Lean Delete: The copyright concerns are bogus, God is not going to sue us. (Don't get technical with me about translations, its one sentence anyway and we'll never get sued by anyone except maybe .... Satan.) By itself, this article isn't useful, as it has no discussion as to why this verse is notable. I do not agree that every bible verse is notable, though every book is.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Satan has access to lots and lots and lots of lawyers! Carrite (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2011 (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.