Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations of The Lord's Prayer

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. One (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of The Lord's Prayer[edit]

Except for the first two paragraphs, which are already present at Lord's Prayer, this article contains no encyclopedic content, but rather only source material. Source material (provided it is verifiable and not copyrighted) belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia; any of these translations that are unverifiable or are under copyright protection belong neither at Wikisource nor at Wikipedia. In short, while some of this material may belong at Wikisource (and Wikisource already has translations of the Lord's Prayer into many of these languages), none of it belongs at Wikipedia. —An gr 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —An gr 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —An gr 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say "Merge" back to the Lord's Prayer, but it looks like the only relevant content is content that was copied directly from there. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is definitely Wikisource material. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the material (not just some of it) on some Wikimedia project, e.g. Wikisource. Fg2 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with keeping all of it is that a lot of it may well be copyrighted. Any translation done in the latter three-quarters of the 20th century or in the 21st century is likely to be copyright-protected. Without definitive source info for these translations, we have no way to know. —An gr 08:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate those concerns on avoiding a copyvio, but Jesus required that the copying of the Lord's Prayer and all translations -- even before the GNU license was created, ("Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"). Of course, citation to a verifiable source (in this case Mark 16:15, KJV translation) is encouraged. Mandsford (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is writing an encyclopedia and Wikisource is compiling a free library. Neither project is engaged in proselytism. —An gr 05:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've stopped talking about copyright violations. Mandsford (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nominator's observations are succinct. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this didn't exist elsewhere on Wikisource or a non-Wikipedia source; and if I believed that the translations were made by people fluent in many languages instead of repeating the same "International Consultation" template (all these years, we should have been saying "Save us from the time of trial" and not the incorrect "lead us not into temptation"); then I'd mourn for the erasure of this 100KB+ article . While an encyclopedia article should be interesting, it is even more important that it should be reliable. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 69.19.244.199 (talk · contribs) was there before you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as wikipedia is not a source repository -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (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.