Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine countenance


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Divine countenance

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This duplicates the already-deleted Countenance divine (see WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine for that discussion) in my opinion, though the admin reviewing a SD request disagreed and. The article was created by an editor whose main editing interest seems to be video games, and whose purpose seemed to be to hold a "use in popular culture" section holding a single entry referring to a video game. We have a link only to one old theological dictionary, which treats the Hebrew word for "face", explaining that the "face of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible in particular interesting ways, but which does not mark it as a "theological concept". (In fact, given that "to the face of X" is the usual Hebrew way of saying "before X", it turns out that nearly all uses of "face of God" in the Hebrew Bible just mean [metaphorically] "before God".) There is just no independent concept here, and aside from word studies such as the one linked to, there are no sources to talk about this as a distinct topic. At most, we just have people saying "'face of God' means xxx". Tb (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: If the result of this discussion is "delete", presumably the just-recreated redirect at Countenance divine should be re-deleted as well. Tb (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I can't see the previous article, but in the deletion discussion it was described as being an OR-rich essay about the phrase "countenance divine" in the Blake poem, and how "countenance" might be being used as a verb. The present article is clearly not that - it is a simple description of an important concept in Judeo-Christian theology. The previous deletion of "countenance divine" is not a factor in this discussion, because this article has entirely different content. A quick visit to Google Books or Scholar will reveal how widely-discussed this concept is. It is certainly notable and appropriate for inclusion. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Comment - I am the "admin" mentioned above, but I am not an admin. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was inappropriate incorrect of you to remove the CSD without being able to evaluate the original article directly and as a non-admin, but in that case, but now that we're here, we'll let more light shine. :)
 * The Bible uses the phrase "hand of God" as well, and people explain what it means. Does that mean that we need a page in which it is a "theological concept"? Can you show us books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase?  Tb (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it was inappropriate for me to remove it? The template you placed on the article says "f this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Please note also that the speedy deletion criteria G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I'm genuinely interested in why you think I shouldn't have removed it, as I often remove possibly wrongly-placed speedy deletion tags. Thparkth (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on personal talk page Tb (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In terms of "books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase", I can't offer with convenient names like "The Divine Countenance for Dummies" but a cursory check on Google Books reveals this book with a chapter devoted to the concept, and many other uses which certainly discuss it as an "independent concept". Thparkth (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a word study, and not a chapter, but a short section of a page and a half. Tb (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say that I think you are imposing requirements far beyond WP:GNG and leave it at that. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think not. All we have is that the phrase has been used, and the word "face" has been explained in a particular context in the Bible.  Nobody--not even that dictionary you cite--identifies it as a distinctive concept, but simply as a phrase that is interesting to explore.  Since you removed the SD note, I assume you'll be fixing the article into a real article and not just a sentence? Tb (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The previous article was unsourced; this article is sourced. It's still a stub so give it time to acquire more sources. According to this source the Bible uses the term in Numbers 6:23-27 (albeit without "divine" before "countenance", but "His countenance" is used which can also be taken as "divine countenance" or "Divine countenance"). The term also comes up in 7 publications on Wikisource which is enough notability outside of a biblical context to include on Wikipedia. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea of the face of God, and the long tradition that the direct sight of His face is unendurable by humans, is highly notable, the subject of extensive commentary, and could easily support an article.  Note also that face of God currently redirects to a Billy Ray Cyrus album; that might need to change. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume when you say "the subject of extensive commentary", you can provide a reference to some extensive commentaries? Tb (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a citation which makes the notability of the concept clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether it is notable, but whether it is a thing it its own right, rather than just a phrase. (Lots of people use the word "tabletop" but that doesn't mean we need an article Tabletop to talk about them separately from Table.) Tb (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tabletop is a blue link and so it seems we do need an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that you didn't bother looking at it. Tb (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the face of God. I looked at it and saw that it was good.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have at least one reliable source talking about the "ontological significance of the face of God", which would appear to directly answer your question. Thparkth (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. If someone says that Barack Obama's ideas on the Korean crisis are very important, that doesn't mean that a separate page Barack Obama's ideas on the Korean crisis is appropriate. Tb (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If those ideas had "ontological significance" then it probably would be appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many articles about Barack Obama that we have an article just to keep track of them all &mdash; List of topics related to Barack Obama. These include multiple articles about his foreign policy and other good stuff like a lichen and numerous comic books.  I've not found one about his views on Korea or his divine countenance but give it time .... Colonel Warden (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously a significant metaphor and phrase. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is now a substantive article with adequate references. I am not sure that it now deserves the tag of stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable subject, with plenty more to add. I have added some now, including the crucial Exodus quote. Should be renamed to plain Face of God. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (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.