Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14


 * 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 keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 14
This article has very little content, and does not explain why out of the 16 chapters of the epistle, this one stands out enough to be significant in an encyclopedia. Surely we could create articles like this one for every single chapter of every single book in the bible, but previous consensus seems to suggest that that isn't a good idea. Andrew c 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - bugger previous votes. If chapters of the Bible aren't notable, then I'm Mickey Mouse. Note the author has also constructed 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 13 as well. - Richardcavell 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians. Subject seems notable to me, and I think there's plenty of verifiable information about it, even enough for its own article eventually.  But for now, First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians has more than enough room for discussion of the individual chapters.  --Allen 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In expanding Wikipedia, subjects must have a transition from a stub to a well developed article. This article, and all the chapters of First Epistle to the Corinthians are in this stage. True, there isn't much content here and many other chapters of First Epistle to the Corinthians deserve their own articles, but this will come with time. I'm currently working on expanding the content of this page. It would become too specific too merge with First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians. Merging until more content is written is a fine alternative too, but unneccessary work. Further, 1 Cor is a better known and used book, both in pop religion and theology. --Ephilei 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep some chapters are more notable than others. I heard of this one. but should be expanded. --MarsRover 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep somewhat notable as a contentious passage in terms of the ordination of women. Just zis Guy you know? 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The Bible is, arguably, the most important or at least most influential book ever written.  We have articles on every album by bands that most people have never heard of and even articles on songs from those albums (I'd say a song in an album roughly equates to a book chapter).  We have articles on characters so minor in Star Wars and Star Trek that even devoted fans are hard pressed to indentify them.  If in this mass of information and our more than one million articles we do not have a place for articles on biblical chapters, then we a lot of other pages need to go.  Despite apparent previous consensus, I would support the writing of articles on every chapter of every bible book.  Yes we are not a Bible wiki, but this is some of the most notable writing in the history of mankind.  ShootJar 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I apologize for referencing the larger issue of whether bible chapters are significant enough for encyclopedias. The issue at hand is that this is a stub article that basically says (now after JzG's changes) that this is a chapter about two topics already discussed elsewhere on wikipedia. Perhaps everyone can imagine a well expenaded article about this chapter sometime in the future, but my point is that whatever we have in our imaginations does not exist yet in this article. I guess a AfD is a little premature, but I hope that this article does get expanded.--Andrew c 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have no doubts about the notability of the subject, largely agreeing with ShootJar above. The article is a little weak, but many good articles began as stubs and later were expanded.  So, let's keep it and hope for expansion. Cool3 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Appears to be stub with possibilities for expansion. I'm not convinced about whether we should have articles for individual Bible chapters rather than entire Bible books, but until there is a decision that this is inappropriate, this chapter is notable enough that it could warrant an article. Paddles 23:08, 20 May 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.