483:? My position is unchanged since then: each verse--or equivalent in other writings--that has RS coverage is eligible for a separate article per the GNG. Not just Christian or Jewish writings, but any sacred text that's attracted any commentary, whether devotional, theologic, or academic. Judeochristian writings have better coverage as of now, but yes, this can and ultimately should be expanded to every major religious source document to the level that individual verses (or other smallest elements) receive appropriate RS commentary.
1028:, the specific source of that phrase, which should also redirect there). In general, I don't think that independent articles on each Bible verse are warranted. Yes, there are certainly sources which focus attention on each in turn, but that does not necessitate that each receives an article any more than detailed analyses of Shakespeare suggest that we should have articles for each individual act of his plays. In this case, however, the content of the verse is well known (much more so that chapter-and-verse number, unlike, say,
1133:: Same as with the other verse titled articles: This is not forum for an extended commentary and cross-comparision on every scriptural verse in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Rig Veda, Upanishad, etc, etc. this is where this leads. This should primarily be kept (as much as possible) to topics and subjects not a continuous or consecutive list of verses of scripture with separate articles. I am sure there is a Bible Wiki out there somewhere for that.
737:, based on the extensive literature discussing allegorical interpretations specifically of this verse, both Jewish (e.g. the Zohar) and Christian (e.g. Augustine: "a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels"). There's a quite substantial article to be written here. The article should also summarise the extensive range of artwork on the subject, e.g.
415:
sacred writings of whatever religion are inherently non-notable. While translations could be covered in
Wikisource, major world religions have numerous RS commentaries that go verse-by-verse through their entirety. Additionally, the above nomination does not articulate any issue with this particular
711:
as its building blocks (it all depends how deep you want to study it). In addition, it make no sense to only cite verses 1 and 2 that speak of creation and "darkness" and skip out on verses 3 to 5 that continue with "light" and hence the creation of day (i.e. the
Earthly embodiment of "light") and
946:
I have no problem with redirection. In fact, I initially made this a redirect, but it was reverted by IZAK who believes the article should be kept (not as a redirect). That is what precipitated this AfD. Given the current state of the article, I assume redirection (thus, deletion of the article
439:
of the "sacred writings"? Really? So we should have individual articles on each individual word in the entire bible? After all there is plenty of writing on many individual words. Of course, that would be absolutely ridiculous. If we covered that at all, we'd combine it into one larger article
706:
Because Bible verses are notable in and of themselves, and have been cited extensively for millennia on their own and carry their own weight, while words alone are not as significant although they can be, as even letters can be crucial since the Bible is originally written in Hebrew using the
497:
Assuming I grant that each verse should be covered in detail, how does keeping an article which nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria benefit us in any way? This article has no sources and no content (except for content explicitly excluded from WP per policy). Furthermore, even if
637:
civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both
456:, etc). I don't know how we could possibly justify that, particularly in light of the fact that the sole content here just about qualifies for db-transwiki, given that it's unsourced, lacking commentary, and entirely listed translations. How is that encyclopedic? —
521:
I've quite obviously read the previous discussions on this matter. The one you quote from 2 years ago was short and poorly represented, even still with diverse opinions. You say your opinion hasn't changed since then, which I would sum up with your first comment:
1167:
Regardless of this verse article expansion or improvement, the editors should find a way to consolidate the significant information into topical articles. All notable verses have articles or have been addressed in subject headed articles.
440:
relating to the passage, the section, or the work overall. So to with the verses. You appear to be supportive of an article for each and every verse in the bible. That's millions of articles, just to cover what we already do in
353:. The latter article should almost certainly exist (although it is in need of work and expansion), but the former probably should not in light of more appropriate targets. I'll wait until this AfD concludes to do that. —
1071:. An expansion of the article renders several of the content-based "delete" or "redirect" arguments invalid. The nomination reasons are now also invalid, since the content in this article is not covered elsewhere. --
686:)... all devoted to just this content. Those should be sufficient to cover any material which is notable from this verse. Why do we need a separate article to do that? Why not a separate article for each word? —
168:
219:), but not every verse, and not those without extensive commentary which can't be fit on another, larger page. This article clearly fits that criteria, as it has no content and is already covered elsewhere. —
864:. I note with concern that user Jasonasosa is attempting to circumvent the ongoing AfD discussion by redirecting the page -- I was going to spend some time improving the article, but that's now impossible. --
614:
610:
404:
400:
207:, and elsewhere. Its content is limited to translations (which are already listed on other WM projects, making it a close candidate for db-transwiki). The community has largely spoken elsewhere that
802:: I too question the rationale of further creation and listing of "every verse" in a topic/subject in scriptural text of any origin. More of a road to an eventual disaster than anything else.
526:. I agree. There is no encyclopedic discussion or commentary in this article, nor anything drawn from RSes, only bare translations, and so it belongs on another project, not here. —
242:
1036:
suggests that's where we should host the content. Not coincidentally, the article there is, while still in dire need of improvement, better than what this AFD is looking at now.
123:
967:
An IP editor has extended the article to an extent that redirection is no longer an option, and merging would not be preferable. The article should be kept as is and expanded.
264:
162:
609:
and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see
551:: Continued expansion of individual extended verse commentary articles in this way, verse by verse, is an explosive cross-religion disaster in the making.
888:. It would be possible to create an article, but this is not it. I cannot even see any point keeping the page history behind a redirect. I voted to keep
502:
wasn't the case, and the article had a basic amount of detail, then what benefit is served by keeping this article and not merging with a parent, like
128:
666:
If these 5 verses are one unit which is notable, then there should be a single article on that unit. We shouldn't have individual articles on the
1115:
901:
1072:
865:
744:
524:
Bare (non-copyrighted) religious texts belong at
Wikisource, encyclopedic discussion of such texts using RS'es belongs at Knowledge (XXG)
416:
verse that cannot be fixed through regular editing. Likewise, coverage of a supertopic does not preclude coverage of notable subtopics.
670:
of the unit, particularly when we have no actual content with which to flesh them out past a speedy deletion criteria. We already have
760:
per IZAK. Philosophers and
Theologians from both the Christian and Jewish traditions have commented extensively verse by verse on the
17:
739:
1060:
830:
605:) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key
955:
694:
534:
464:
361:
329:
307:
227:
96:
91:
922:, as a simple Google Books search demonstrates. If the article cannot currently stand on its own, it should be redirected to
100:
480:
408:
183:
1041:
150:
1191:
1173:
1138:
807:
556:
83:
1218:
40:
625:
are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of
1186:: I withdraw my opinions regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings.
1121:
997:
923:
907:
675:
503:
200:
1076:
1037:
144:
869:
748:
1187:
1169:
1134:
1097:
803:
552:
1033:
919:
786:: So do you plan on building wiki articles for every verse in the Pentateuch then? Have fun with that. —
140:
947:
content) would be preferable to you? There's no reason we need to get rid of the history to do that. —
1214:
1111:
897:
633:
describing the First Day of
Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to
585:
61:
36:
1195:
1177:
1142:
1124:
1101:
1080:
1063:
1045:
1008:
976:
962:
935:
910:
873:
856:
839:
811:
794:
776:
752:
721:
701:
655:
589:
560:
541:
492:
471:
425:
391:
368:
333:
311:
278:
256:
234:
65:
1057:
1001:
835:
787:
771:
190:
958:
697:
537:
467:
364:
325:
303:
230:
176:
1093:
1017:
683:
515:
488:
421:
350:
295:
1088:-- The article now provides a substantial commentary on the verse. As I write the content of
387:
274:
252:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1213:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
682:
and the parshas, as well as the
Islamic articles, as well as other individual sections (like
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
972:
931:
581:
87:
57:
156:
53:
1054:
852:
825:
765:
708:
671:
634:
602:
507:
445:
885:
643:
948:
717:
687:
651:
527:
457:
354:
321:
299:
220:
639:
484:
417:
383:
270:
248:
117:
453:
1089:
1025:
968:
927:
893:
889:
630:
626:
622:
618:
346:
291:
216:
79:
71:
1092:
is inadequate to warrant retaining that one (unless expanded substantially).
848:
823:
Specifically notable due to the extensive commentary on this specific verse.--
761:
298:
are not better articles, but suspect that these may be more easily expanded. –
1029:
713:
647:
212:
884:
The page contains very little commentary, and even that reads like obvious
918:- Poor writing is not a reason for deletion. This article clearly passes
679:
511:
449:
204:
577:
615:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination)
611:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination)
606:
441:
405:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination)
401:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination)
1207:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
926:. There is no added benefit to getting rid of the page history.
646:
to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more.
411:. There is, in fact, no consensus that I'm aware of that
113:
109:
105:
175:
617:
and why this article as well as the two others about
712:night (i.e. the Earthly embodiment of "darkness").
320:
after improvement with secondary commentary. Yay! –
189:
243:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1221:). No further edits should be made to this page.
518:, etc... where this material is already covered?
199:A single verse in the bible, already covered in
8:
265:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
263:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:Note: This debate has been included in the
262:
240:
896:is improved shortly then it should go. –
1110:after recent substantial improvement. –
382:- Conservapedia is thattaway... ---: -->
597:because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first
523:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1020:, the article which talks about the
892:after it was expanded, but unless
290:per nom. I am also surprised that
24:
740:Separation of Light from Darkness
481:Knowledge (XXG):Bible verses/2010
409:Knowledge (XXG):Bible verses/2010
920:our general notability guideline
211:verses are appropriate (such as
349:can probably be redirected to
1:
267:. 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
245:. 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
1196:19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1178:18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1143:16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1125:13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1102:20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1081:00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
1064:17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
1053:per IZAK, Jclemens, et al.
1046:16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
1009:15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
977:12:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
963:16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
936:15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
911:12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
874:11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
857:11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
840:05:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
812:17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
795:18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
777:04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
753:01:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
722:18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
702:14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
656:23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
590:23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
561:17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
542:05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
493:00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
472:14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
426:19:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
392:18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
369:18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
334:18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
312:18:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
279:17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
257:17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
235:16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
66:16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1238:
998:Genesis creation narrative
924:Genesis creation narrative
676:Genesis creation narrative
504:Genesis creation narrative
201:Genesis creation narrative
407:, and prior consensus at
1210:Please do not modify it.
642:and there are plenty of
32:Please do not modify it.
56:, it's worth keeping.
576:with the article on
52:. Consensus is that
1038:Squeamish Ossifrage
1024:of this verse (and
1188:Iconoclast.Horizon
1170:Iconoclast.Horizon
1135:Iconoclast.Horizon
1106:Change opinion to
1018:Let there be light
804:Iconoclast.Horizon
684:Let there be light
553:Iconoclast.Horizon
516:Let there be light
476:Have you actually
444:(and subarticles:
351:Let there be light
296:Let there be light
48:The result was
281:
268:
259:
246:
1229:
1212:
1184:Withdraw opinion
1118:
1006:
961:
904:
833:
828:
792:
774:
768:
700:
540:
470:
399:per outcomes at
367:
269:
247:
233:
194:
193:
179:
131:
121:
103:
34:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1219:deletion review
1208:
1116:
1002:
953:
902:
831:
826:
788:
772:
766:
709:Hebrew alphabet
692:
672:Book of Genesis
635:Judeo-Christian
603:Book of Genesis
532:
508:Book of Genesis
462:
446:Book of Genesis
359:
225:
136:
127:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1235:
1233:
1224:
1223:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1147:
1146:
1127:
1104:
1083:
1073:202.124.75.231
1066:
1048:
1011:
1000:. Thanks, —
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
939:
938:
913:
876:
866:202.124.74.141
859:
842:
817:
816:
815:
814:
780:
779:
755:
745:202.124.75.177
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
659:
658:
601:verses of the
592:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
546:
545:
544:
519:
429:
428:
394:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
339:
338:
337:
336:
283:
282:
260:
197:
196:
133:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1234:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1205:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1094:Peterkingiron
1091:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:WP:COMMONNAME
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
999:
995:
991:
988:
987:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
960:
957:
952:
951:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
906:
905:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
881:
877:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
841:
838:
837:
834:
829:
822:
819:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
798:
797:
796:
793:
791:
785:
782:
781:
778:
775:
769:
763:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
736:
733:
732:
723:
719:
715:
710:
705:
704:
703:
699:
696:
691:
690:
685:
681:
678:, as well as
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
543:
539:
536:
531:
530:
525:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
475:
474:
473:
469:
466:
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
438:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
370:
366:
363:
358:
357:
352:
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
266:
261:
258:
254:
250:
244:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
229:
224:
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1209:
1206:
1183:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1130:
1129:
1114:
1107:
1085:
1068:
1050:
1021:
1013:
1003:
993:
989:
949:
915:
900:
879:
878:
861:
844:
836:(yada, yada)
824:
820:
799:
789:
783:
757:
738:
734:
688:
667:
598:
594:
573:
548:
528:
499:
477:
458:
436:
412:
396:
379:
355:
317:
287:
286:
221:
208:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1090:Genesis 1:5
1026:Genesis 1:3
894:Genesis 1:4
890:Genesis 1:2
847:per IZAK.--
631:Genesis 1:2
627:Genesis 1:1
623:Genesis 1:5
619:Genesis 1:3
582:ACEOREVIVED
347:Genesis 1:3
292:Genesis 1:3
217:Genesis 1:1
163:free images
80:Genesis 1:4
72:Genesis 1:4
58:Mark Arsten
1055:Briangotts
1032:), and so
1004:Jasonasosa
790:Jasonasosa
767:Guerillero
762:Pentateuch
454:Noah's Ark
1215:talk page
1112:Fayenatic
1061:(Contrib)
1030:John 3:16
898:Fayenatic
322:Roscelese
300:Roscelese
271:• Gene93k
249:• Gene93k
213:John 3:16
37:talk page
1217:or in a
1014:Redirect
994:Redirect
680:Bereshit
512:Bereshit
485:Jclemens
450:Bereshit
418:Jclemens
330:contribs
308:contribs
205:Bereshit
124:View log
39:or in a
1069:Comment
1022:content
862:Comment
800:Comment
784:Comment
773:My Talk
578:Genesis
549:Comment
384:Carrite
169:WP refs
157:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1131:Delete
1058:(Talk)
990:Delete
969:Neelix
928:Neelix
880:Delete
832:crewer
668:pieces
613:&
380:Delete
288:Delete
141:Google
101:delete
54:WP:HEY
1122:ondon
908:ondon
886:WP:OR
849:Yoavd
821:Keep.
764:. --
743:. --
644:WP:RS
607:axiom
574:Merge
442:Bible
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1192:talk
1174:talk
1139:talk
1108:keep
1098:talk
1086:Keep
1077:talk
1051:Keep
1042:talk
973:talk
950:Jess
932:talk
916:Keep
870:talk
853:talk
845:Keep
827:brew
808:talk
758:Keep
749:talk
735:Keep
718:talk
714:IZAK
689:Jess
674:and
652:talk
648:IZAK
640:WP:N
629:and
621:and
599:five
595:Keep
586:talk
557:talk
529:Jess
500:that
489:talk
478:read
459:Jess
422:talk
397:Keep
388:talk
356:Jess
326:talk
318:Keep
304:talk
275:talk
253:talk
222:Jess
215:and
209:some
177:FENS
151:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
50:keep
1016:to
996:to
992:or
437:Any
413:any
191:TWL
126:•
122:– (
1194:)
1176:)
1141:)
1100:)
1079:)
1044:)
975:)
954:·
934:)
882:.
872:)
855:)
810:)
770:|
751:)
720:)
693:·
654:)
588:)
580:.
559:)
533:·
514:,
510:,
506:,
491:)
463:·
452:,
448:,
424:)
403:,
390:)
360:·
332:)
328:⋅
310:)
306:⋅
277:)
255:)
226:·
203:,
171:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
1190:(
1172:(
1137:(
1117:L
1096:(
1075:(
1040:(
971:(
959:♥
956:Δ
930:(
903:L
868:(
851:(
806:(
747:(
716:(
698:♥
695:Δ
650:(
584:(
555:(
538:♥
535:Δ
487:(
468:♥
465:Δ
420:(
386:(
365:♥
362:Δ
324:(
302:(
294:/
273:(
251:(
231:♥
228:Δ
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.