Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:4


 * 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. Consensus is that WP:HEY, it's worth keeping. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 1:4

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A single verse in the bible, already covered in Genesis creation narrative, Bereshit, and elsewhere. Its content is limited to translations (which are already listed on other WM projects, making it a close candidate for db-transwiki). The community has largely spoken elsewhere that some verses are appropriate (such as John 3:16 and Genesis 1:1), but not every verse, and not those without extensive commentary which can't be fit on another, larger page. This article clearly fits that criteria, as it has no content and is already covered elsewhere. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete [edit: without prejudice to re-creation if someone chooses to add actual content] per nom. I am also surprised that Genesis 1:3/Let there be light are not better articles, but suspect that these may be more easily expanded. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep after improvement with secondary commentary. Yay! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Genesis 1:3 can probably be redirected to Let there be light. The latter article should almost certainly exist (although it is in need of work and expansion), but the former probably should not in light of more appropriate targets. I'll wait until this AfD concludes to do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Conservapedia is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per outcomes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination), and prior consensus at Bible verses/2010. There is, in fact, no consensus that I'm aware of that any sacred writings of whatever religion are inherently non-notable. While translations could be covered in Wikisource, major world religions have numerous RS commentaries that go verse-by-verse through their entirety.  Additionally, the above nomination does not articulate any issue with this particular verse that cannot be fixed through regular editing. Likewise, coverage of a supertopic does not preclude coverage of notable subtopics. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of the "sacred writings"? Really? So we should have individual articles on each individual word in the entire bible? After all there is plenty of writing on many individual words. Of course, that would be absolutely ridiculous. If we covered that at all, we'd combine it into one larger article relating to the passage, the section, or the work overall. So to with the verses. You appear to be supportive of an article for each and every verse in the bible. That's millions of articles, just to cover what we already do in Bible (and subarticles: Book of Genesis, Bereshit, Noah's Ark, etc). I don't know how we could possibly justify that, particularly in light of the fact that the sole content here just about qualifies for db-transwiki, given that it's unsourced, lacking commentary, and entirely listed translations. How is that encyclopedic?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read Bible verses/2010? My position is unchanged since then: each verse--or equivalent in other writings--that has RS coverage is eligible for a separate article per the GNG.  Not just Christian or Jewish writings, but any sacred text that's attracted any commentary, whether devotional, theologic, or academic. Judeochristian writings have better coverage as of now, but yes, this can and ultimately should be expanded to every major religious source document to the level that individual verses (or other smallest elements) receive appropriate RS commentary. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming I grant that each verse should be covered in detail, how does keeping an article which nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria benefit us in any way? This article has no sources and no content (except for content explicitly excluded from WP per policy). Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, and the article had a basic amount of detail, then what benefit is served by keeping this article and not merging with a parent, like Genesis creation narrative, Book of Genesis, Bereshit, Let there be light, etc... where this material is already covered?
 * I've quite obviously read the previous discussions on this matter. The one you quote from 2 years ago was short and poorly represented, even still with diverse opinions. You say your opinion hasn't changed since then, which I would sum up with your first comment: Bare (non-copyrighted) religious texts belong at Wikisource, encyclopedic discussion of such texts using RS'es belongs at Wikipedia. I agree. There is no encyclopedic discussion or commentary in this article, nor anything drawn from RSes, only bare translations, and so it belongs on another project, not here.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Continued expansion of individual extended verse commentary articles in this way, verse by verse, is an explosive cross-religion disaster in the making. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with the article on Genesis. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key axiom and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination) and why this article as well as the two others about Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:5 are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 describing the First Day of Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to Judeo-Christian civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both WP:N and there are plenty of WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If these 5 verses are one unit which is notable, then there should be a single article on that unit. We shouldn't have individual articles on the pieces of the unit, particularly when we have no actual content with which to flesh them out past a speedy deletion criteria. We already have Book of Genesis and Genesis creation narrative, as well as Bereshit and the parshas, as well as the Islamic articles, as well as other individual sections (like Let there be light)... all devoted to just this content. Those should be sufficient to cover any material which is notable from this verse. Why do we need a separate article to do that? Why not a separate article for each word?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Bible verses are notable in and of themselves, and have been cited extensively for millennia on their own and carry their own weight, while words alone are not as significant although they can be, as even letters can be crucial since the Bible is originally written in Hebrew using the Hebrew alphabet as its building blocks (it all depends how deep you want to study it). In addition, it make no sense to only cite verses 1 and 2 that speak of creation and "darkness" and skip out on verses 3 to 5 that continue with "light" and hence the creation of day (i.e. the Earthly embodiment of "light") and night (i.e. the Earthly embodiment of "darkness"). IZAK (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on the extensive literature discussing allegorical interpretations specifically of this verse, both Jewish (e.g. the Zohar) and Christian (e.g. Augustine: "a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels"). There's a quite substantial article to be written here. The article should also summarise the extensive range of artwork on the subject, e.g. Separation of Light from Darkness. -- 202.124.75.177 (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK. Philosophers and Theologians from both the Christian and Jewish traditions have commented extensively verse by verse on the Pentateuch. -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  04:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: So do you plan on building wiki articles for every verse in the Pentateuch then? Have fun with that.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I too question the rationale of further creation and listing of "every verse" in a topic/subject in scriptural text of any origin. More of a road to an eventual disaster than anything else. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Specifically notable due to the extensive commentary on this specific verse.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK.--Yoavd (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note with concern that user Jasonasosa is attempting to circumvent the ongoing AfD discussion by redirecting the page -- I was going to spend some time improving the article, but that's now impossible. -- 202.124.74.141 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page contains very little commentary, and even that reads like obvious WP:OR. It would be possible to create an article, but this is not it. I cannot even see any point keeping the page history behind a redirect. I voted to keep Genesis 1:2 after it was expanded, but unless Genesis 1:4 is improved shortly then it should go. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Poor writing is not a reason for deletion. This article clearly passes our general notability guideline, as a simple Google Books search demonstrates. If the article cannot currently stand on its own, it should be redirected to Genesis creation narrative. There is no added benefit to getting rid of the page history. Neelix (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with redirection. In fact, I initially made this a redirect, but it was reverted by IZAK who believes the article should be kept (not as a redirect). That is what precipitated this AfD. Given the current state of the article, I assume redirection (thus, deletion of the article content) would be preferable to you? There's no reason we need to get rid of the history to do that.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has extended the article to an extent that redirection is no longer an option, and merging would not be preferable. The article should be kept as is and expanded. Neelix (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Genesis creation narrative. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Let there be light, the article which talks about the content of this verse (and Genesis 1:3, the specific source of that phrase, which should also redirect there). In general, I don't think that independent articles on each Bible verse are warranted.  Yes, there are certainly sources which focus attention on each in turn, but that does not necessitate that each receives an article any more than detailed analyses of Shakespeare suggest that we should have articles for each individual act of his plays.  In this case, however, the content of the verse is well known (much more so that chapter-and-verse number, unlike, say, John 3:16), and so WP:COMMONNAME suggests that's where we should host the content.  Not coincidentally, the article there is, while still in dire need of improvement, better than what this AFD is looking at now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK, Jclemens, et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. An expansion of the article renders several of the content-based "delete" or "redirect" arguments invalid. The nomination reasons are now also invalid, since the content in this article is not covered elsewhere. -- 202.124.75.231 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article now provides a substantial commentary on the verse. As I write the content of Genesis 1:5 is inadequate to warrant retaining that one (unless expanded substantially).  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Change opinion to keep after recent substantial improvement. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same as with the other verse titled articles: This is not forum for an extended commentary and cross-comparision on every scriptural verse in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Rig Veda, Upanishad, etc, etc. this is where this leads. This should primarily be kept (as much as possible) to topics and subjects not a continuous or consecutive list of verses of scripture with separate articles. I am sure there is a Bible Wiki out there somewhere for that. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of this verse article expansion or improvement, the editors should find a way to consolidate the significant information into topical articles. All notable verses have articles or have been addressed in subject headed articles. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw opinion: I withdraw my opinions regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2012 (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.