Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 14 (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge. This probably should have gone through the merge mechanism instead, as there's no real disagreement on keeping the material in itself. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 14
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago, and the result was keep, with most users supporting an expansion. However, the article has barely changed in that time, so I am putting this article before the community again since the article hasn't improved in over a year. I believe that all the information this article contains can easily be summarized at the article on the entire book, and having an article on this individual chapter isn't necessary. Also, the articles ordination of women and glossolalia both cover the minimal information contained in this article. Some biblical chapters are more important than others. I believe my original nomination text still stands: ''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 [talk] 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into 1 Corinthians &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the epistle's main article. This should also apply to the other articles on individual chapters of 1 Corinthians that currently exist; an exception should be made for chapter 13, often known as "The Love Chapter," as it is widely known and notable on its own. (That chapter article was subjected to AfD twice with a strong consensus to keep.) As much as I love the Bible (I'm involved in Bible Quiz), I don't think each individual chapter of the Bible deserves an article. A case can be made for certain chapters, especially Psalms such as Psalm 23 or Chapter 2 of Acts, which is central to much of Pentecostalism. I think the general principle should be that individual chapter articles are not necessary, except for certain chapters that are notable on their own. Realkyhick 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Chris 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to 1 Corinthians per Realkyhick. --Metropolitan90 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to 1 Corinthians, in strong agreement with Realkyhick. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. There are 1189 chapters in the Bible. Are we to have articles on them all? Lurker  (said · done) 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to 1 Corinthians, since the current article doesn't say much unique about that particular chapter.  A section of 1 Corinthians can be created for "Notable verses," and this can be done for other Biblical books, allowing a merge without the loss of any data. I'm in agreement that some chapters of certain books do have independent notabilty, and these would each need to be evaluated on individual basis.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There will be thousands of commentaries over the last two thousand years on this and every other bible chapter. The discussion of them has been the main preoccupation of Europe and much as Asia for centuries, and there is material to support an article for every one of them. this should simply be regarded as a stub. there's something much needed though, and thats the necessary expansion. I think they are all notable. In fact, i think probably most individual verses are--there's been much more written on each of them than on almost any video game character, and notability is permanent. . the answer to the noms question is that every one of them stands out enough to be notable. We havent written the others yet, but we have to start somewhere. There's a lot of notable things we havent written yet. Doesnt mean we delete the articles on the ones we do have. DGG (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and yes, that an article hasnt been improved in a year is no reason for deletion either. there's no time deadline here--its not as if we had to go to print once and for all. DGG (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and I added a few more references to start it off--including an entire book on this particular chapter--and articles on individual verses within it. DGG (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your references emphasize why this article shouldn't exist. One citation deals with speaking in tongues. Another 3 deal with the role of women in church, and one deals with multiple chapters. I believe these citations would be good additions to the articles dealing with the topic. I believe it is better to have a more holistic article that can discuss the topic from multiple sources, and not limit it based on semi-arbitrary biblical divisions. For example, in addition to what Paul says at 1 Cor 14 regarding tongues, he adds to the topic at 1 Cor 12, but of course mentioning that in the 1 Cor 14 article would be off topic, and we'd need to create the 1 Cor 12 article to discuss what Paul says about the exact same topic there. On the other hand, an article like Glossolalia, can go into detail about all the places tongues is mentioned in the NT. -Andrew c [talk] 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge All chapters of the Bible are notable, but we plainly can't have an article on each one. So is this chapter a particular standout in its own context? Not on the scale of the preceding chapter, no. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * why can't we? WP NOT PAPER. Everything that's notable we can have an article on if there are sources. In fact, everything that's notable we should have an article on if there are sources and someone to write the article. that's the basic principle of an encyclopedia. Paper encyclopedias may have to compromise here, but we dont. What you're saying is advocating removing content that you admit to be notable and sourced, because it isnt particularly important to you. This one, by the way, is one of the proof texts for why women cant speak in churches, and has been cited with derision by feminist literature for centuries. That was already mentioned in the article. DGG (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ''note -- I have listed this AfD at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible]] in the hope of further input--after all, I'm just an amateur in this and I may be wrong.DGG (talk)

Merge - retaining the option of recreation later. I'm no expert either, but my own feeling is that (1) this article is sooo minimal that there really isn't much to be lost by merging it at this point, and (2) my own personal belief is that the chapters of the Bible were created significantly after the texts themselves, and on that basis are in several cases not the best way of "breaking up" the texts. There has been discussion on the talk page of the Bible project regarding which "storylines" (for lack of a better word) or events are notable enough for a separate article. Unfortunately, that discussion dealt almost exclusively with the historical narratives, not with the epistles. The matter of the epistles hasn't really been addressed yet. I would welcome any party interested in helping us come to some sort of guidelines regarding the basis of creation of subarticles regarding the epistles to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Thanks. John Carter 14:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this chapter, along with almost every other chapter in the Bible, is more notable than any Pokemon character, TV series or songs we consider notable. Note that the nav template for this first epistle is also up for deletion: Templates_for_deletion. John Vandenberg 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 600 scholar results; 714 book results; two current news articles and 235 news archive results. Anyone wanting to write a FA about this chapter would not be limited for material to do so!  And it will happen in time. John Vandenberg 04:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:45, 9 September 2007 (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.