Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English versions of the Nicene Creed


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

English versions of the Nicene Creed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article, which has many questionable copyright issues involved with English translations, is primarily a lyrics text repository that would be better off on Wikisource were it not for the copyright issues. After removing any copyright problems, any sourced critical commentary about English translations of the Nicene Creed can be incorporated into the Nicene Creed article. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 16:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Lyrics repository? Seriously? The Nicene creed is one of the more important attestations of faith of any religion, and, of course, was not originally written in English, so how it has been translated over the years is a proper topic for an encyclopedia article.  I am simply not seeing the copyright issues--many of these are too old to be covered by copyright, and those that are not are simply derivative works themselves.  Even if public religious affirmations of faith are copyrightable as a class, I remain unconvinced that what we currently have in the article is itself problematic. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "lyrics". I must have been thinking about the Gloria in excelsis Deo copyvio removal I was doing before this nomination.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 21:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is wall-to-wall OR and the subject itself isn't notable. Every single source cited is a primary source documenting a particular English-language version to which many Wikipedians shamefully contributed. These versions are then followed by OR commentary about what makes each different. There is not a single secondary source discussing the topic or providing any commentary on the differences. Not only should this be deleted forthwith, I would seriously question every editor that saw this article and failed to nominate it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: you're saying one particular liturgical translation was done by Wikipedians? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Several editors added other versions of the creed from various churches to this article, which contradicts WP:NOT and WP:PRIMARY. Content around sourced commentary never developed; it became a hodgepodge of differing versions. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are working to expand the article in good faith, and most of what has been added seems to be referenced. There's nothing "shameful" about it and statements like that create needless WP:DRAMA. And as for links like forthwith, yeah, I think we know what it means. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would seriously question every editor that saw this article and failed to see that it's obviously about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree that this is not a good article, but it is not so bad that it requires TNT. The subject is certainly notable, but it might be better for the comparison to be clause by clause, rather than denomination  by denomination.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Lousy page, fails, for example, to cover the Reformation era discussions, mostly about whether ot keep it, but also about the wording, which are probably the most aspect of any encyclopedic discussion of translating this creed. If any of the modern translations excited controversy (as most liturgical wording does) that also belongs in the article.  Let us pray that it will grow and improve.  Greatly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, although the translations themselves could be transwikied to wikisource(?). Smmurphy(Talk) 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the article badly needs work, and might be revised to include non-English versions, but this page at archive.org indicates the topic of the Creed itself is widely discussed, and I have to think the various versions of the Creed used by various proponents and opponents, as well as by churches with different phrasing of the creed, probably has sufficient attention to merit a separate article. No objection to revisiting later if I'm wrong, though. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2016 (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.