Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation according to Genesis


 * 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 keep; but it does need to be worked on. ~ Arjun  01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Says nothing not already said far better in the article for Genesis. Do we really need an article on every single story in the bible, when that just leads to rehashing the same material over and over? Adam Cuerden talk 18:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If anything has not already been stated, it could be merged. As you have said it, though, this article can be deleted. -- tennis man    sign here!  18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Genesis says little about creation stories. If the material in this article which is not found in the Genesis article were added there, that article would be too long, and it would be overwhelmed with detailed analysis of the creation stories, which are only part of the material now in the Genesis article. This article is about the creation stories common to three great world religions, and these creation myths have been the subject of literally thousands of scholarly works. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I am not worried that we will run out of bandwidth by having an article on this important topic. Important topics deserve editing, not deletion, if someone disagrees with what the article says. I am not impressed by dire warnings that if we do not delete this article we will be swamped by having two article about every book of the Bible. If there are two encyclopedic topics dealing with something, and the article would be too long with both included in one article, Wikipedia policy calls for having two separate articles. Edison 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object to it wpinning off in future, but as it is, it's an absolute mess, and every single aspect of it is done, and done better, in Genesis. Better to delete it, expand it there, then spin off when content is gatherered. Adam Cuerden talk 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

merge or delete - genesis can handle any extra info mentioned here. it's best to keep it as one article.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions.   --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep:Genesis is a long article with one paragraph on creation that references this article as main. We have articles on every single episode of Star Trek (See Category:Star Trek episodes). Why can't we have articles on Bible stories, most of which have an extensive literature in various religious traditions, secular scholarship, depictions by masters in painting and sculpture, fictional treatments, operas, plays, motion pictures, etc.?--agr 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't my area of expertise, but the article looks to be pretty well referenced and detailed. The question of whether or not this referenced subarticle should be merged into the main article for Genesis sounds to me like a question that should be handled with a merge tab and discussion on the talk pages of the articles.  Short of that, I would want to hear a reason to delete (as opposed to simply saying the content can probably be merged) the article before supporting a deletion. Dugwiki 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per agr Jcuk 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - although not because we have articles on every Star Trek episode. The existence of one article or set of articles has no bearing on whether this article should exist. No, keep because the nomination presents no compelling reason for deletion. This is a scholarly topic and an article on it is a reasonable addition to an encyclopedia. Otto4711 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The creation stories in Genesis are such a controversial and well discussed topic that they deserve a focussed article, separate from the general Genesis article. Having said that, I think this article could be cleaned up and improved considerably.Tonicthebrown 00:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The nominator of this article is half-way correct. We don't necessarily need an evaluation of every book of the Bible, but I am a Christian and believe this article has some Religious truth to it. I also agree with Tonicthebrown, the article is so controversial a focused article is deserved. It should either be Kept or Merged into the article Genesis. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§  19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep This is a special aspect of the Book that merits an article. I think we do need an article on each truly major event in the Bible, and that the creation of the universe qualifies as major. And it's a good article, too. (Some of the part of it discussing the Mosaic  origin of Genesis is more general, and does not belong--but that's for editing.  I don't really think it necessary to give a detailed evolutionist critique of everything relating to the Biblical account every time it is mentioned, or a detailed atheist critique of every article on religion.  Perhaps a sentence reminding people that non-Abrahamic religions and non-religious people don't think it happened that way, just in case any true beginner doesn't realize that.)DGG 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * further reason to keep - This is not the only expansion on the basic Genesis article, focusing on a particular section of the book. There are also the articles: Genealogies of Genesis, Fall of man, Noah's ark, Tower of Babel, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph (Hebrew Bible) etc. The arguments in favour of deleting this article would also compel us to delete these others. I agree with Edison that a merge of material would have the result "that article would be too long, and it would be overwhelmed with detailed analysis of the creation stories". That's the whole point of these sub-articles. Tonicthebrown 07:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, my main reason for wanting to combine this one was because I thought it did parts well done poorly in Genesis, whereas Genesis did parts well done poorly in it. This doesn't look likely to happen. Adam Cuerden talk 09:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve There are a number of areas where this article could be expanded. I have in mind the long historical tradition of commentaries on the Seven days of creation.  Since such changes would enlarge this article even more, it doesn't make much sense to merge it into Genesis.  SteveMcCluskey 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve I think that there is so much material in Genesis that there is no problem with having separate articles on each aspect. However, I do not feel the article as it is at present does this topic justice.--Filll 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There are so many variations of Creationism articles on Wikipedia, almost all of them using the Genesis myth as its basis, why do we need another? This is just another religious story that is best kept in the Genesis article.  Let's move onOrangemarlin 01:36, 19 February 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.