Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1-3

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 of the debate was DELETE. Those who point out there isn't actually any encyclopedic commentary in this article are correct — whether it is Wikisourceable or not, I am unclear as I do not work on that project (although I suspect it probably has all the biblical source material it wants by now). Thus, I think this is an AfD that does deal quite specifically with this version of this material. There seems to be a formative, but currently insubstantial suggestion that something similar to this could be done very much more satisfactorily, and possibly under a different title. -Splash^talk 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 1:1-3

If I have marked this for deletion in error, please forgive me. However, this article seems like something that should be on Wikisource, not here. Or perhaps merged with or linked from Genesis? -Danaman5 20:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or Merge with Genesis Ryanjunk 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: See this information. --Kinu 20:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for that helpful information, Kinu. Genesis 1:1-1:3 all have individual articles (see the links at the bottom of this article), and all have similar comparisons between different versions of the verses. However, Genesis 1:1 especially has some information that could be worth keeping. Perhaps keep this article with added commentary, keep Genesis 1:1 for notability and good information, and delete Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3 as unnecessary? -Danaman5 21:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. I have two comments. (A) Yes, I agree that this page is redundant with 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, but I vehemently oppose the idea that every Bible verse gets a separate Wikipedia page. So I would rather delete 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3, and keep the Genesis 1:1-3 page. (B) Before deleting the article Genesis 1:1-3, take a look at what links to it: [1]. It seems to me that this article is not really about Genesis 1:1-3. It is about a comparision of major Bible translations. Notice that the pages that link to it are linking for that reason, and indeed Genesis 1:1-3 has a much more comprehensive list of Bible translations than do the individual verse pages. So I vote to keep it but rename it something like "Old Testament Translation Samples" or something along those lines. Lawrence King 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Lawrence King - Wikipedia is not Wikisource -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify? You said "delete per Lawrence King", but my vote was to keep and rename. Lawrence King 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I used your reasoning, that it's merely a list of translations, to come to my conclusion. Nothing to explain. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not again. Source text belongs on Wikisource. Comparisons are original research and belong on the creator's website, or Wikibooks at best. Get going. Stifle 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Is everyone here comfortable that there's no copyvio here? I'm not. Carlossuarez46 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Having an article for every verse might be a copyright violation. An article that quotes several verses for a specific purpose is not. Lawrence King 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is of course no copyright violation of taking small quotes from almost any book, and that is really what this is. Many of the translations themselves expressly state just how many verses can reasonably be taken. For example, the Good News Bible states that: "Use of up to 1000 verses from the Good News Bible is free, provided that they do not comprise a whole book, nor more than 50% of the work".Brusselsshrek 16:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — lacking in critical analysis, neutral interpretations, historical nuggets, &c.; non-encyclopedic. — RJH 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• DELTE, we already have a Genesis article. 132.205.45.110 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Important biblical verses which have probably been the object of enormous amounts of theological interpretation and allusions in art and literature over the centuries, but none of that is in this article. Genesis 1:1, OTOH, is a useful article (but could no doubt still be expanded). u p p l a n d 13:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.

1. This is an extremely valuable page to see a different old testament translations compared. I think that the all the Wikipedia articles on Bible translations would be severely diminished without a single page where examples of each of the translations can be easily compared. The comparison of versions shown on Genesis 1:1 is nearly worthless due to their similarity. I do not support having hundreds (or even thousands) of verses on Wikipedia, but I do think that these particular verses are the most obvious one's to allow a comparison of Old Testament translations, and thus serve an extremely valuable role in the whole Bible translation domain.
2. I understand Lawrence King's point that the page is really about a comparison rather than about a particular attempt per se to explain these verses, nonetheless, for the name to be consistent with other verses (such as John 3:16), I think they have the correct Wikipedia title - by all means have a redirect page called "Comparison of Old Testament verses" or do a link of the type [[Genesis 1:1-3|Comparison of Old Testament verses]], but leave the name as is.Brusselsshrek 16:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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.