Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I am the Lord your God


 * 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. There are problems with the contents of this page, but none that cannot be resolved by regular editing, or, in the extreme case, redirecting. Skomorokh 23:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the Lord your God

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD contested. Appears to be Original Research --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination for deletion Having re-read the article a couple of times, and compared the references with what is in the article, and having read the comments here, I am persuaded that this article (although requiring work) should could be kept. I would be grateful if an admin would close this AfD. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral To clarify, by withdrawing the nomination, I am not !voting keep or delete (and have amended my previous statement from 'should be kept' to 'could be kept', which is what I meant to say originally). Any closing admin (or other editors wishing to comment on this AfD) should not infer that my withdrawal of the nomination is a Keep. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: surely this is a fork of Ten commandments. The article is not about "I am the Lord your god", it is about the ten commandments, and at least some of the content seems to be a copy of Ten commandments.  We already have an article on the ten commandments, we don't need another one.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Elen of the Roads got it right. Anything beyod what is already in Ten commandments is a pure-OR fork. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This doesn't appear to be a fork of Ten commandments but rather an elaboration on one of the finer points of the commandments, namely the personalization of God. The article is well structured, well referenced, and well balanced, citing views from multiple Abrahamic traditions.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to ten commandments. I agree with WikiDan61 that the article is well-structured, well-referenced, and well-balanced, and I believe WP:PRESERVE requires us to consider where to put well-sourced content when deciding a subject is not suitable for a separate article. However, I also agree with Elen of the Roads and OwenX that this is a fork.  I do not agree that it is original research; it may be a synthesis, but it does not advance a particular position. All the above would indicate a "keep" outcome, but I think it better to have a smaller number of articles, each of which is longer and watched by more interested editors, than a plethora of small articles each watched by only a few.  I think the Wiki model works best when more editors are involved, and I also think it helps end-users of the encyclopaedia if thematically-grouped content is kept together in the same article so they do not have to search or follow links to find the information they need.  And further, I think much of the content of this article is duplicated in ten commandments so a merge would be more economical in terms of reading time for end-users.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer to Merge. The article is highly synthesized. While it has references, it also contains pockets of original research. My inclination is to merge it with Ten Commandments. Majoreditor (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate as redirect to Ten Commandments: it's good research, but it's still original research. Note that we shouldn't merge anything that is believed to be original research or synthesis: if it's a problem here, it would be a problem at any merge target.  Please note that the creator of this page has copied the content on his/her userpage; if this is deleted without a decision to userfy, we'll need to delete the userpage under G4.  Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are few circumstances in which it is appropriate to delete reliably-sourced content from Wikipedia. It may be decided that the article is not about a notable subject, or that it is original research, but in that case reliably-sourced content should normally be merged elsewhere.  "Delete and redirect" in this case would be directly in contravention of the relevant content policy.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would prefer keeping this if the POV and synthesis can be excised, because useful information is in there, but that seems like a lot of work; otherwise, merge back. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean towards keep, with more emphasis on the "Other occurrences" section and judicious cutting of material that is more directly repetitive of the content of Ten Commandments. "I am the Lord your God" is not only the First Commandment; this phrase recurs dozens of times in the Torah, and the significance of its repetition in all these other places has been a subject of concentrated interpretation over the millenia.  Among other things, the phrase is seen as a marker for the so-called Holiness Code.  Any annotated Bible will have notes and commentary on this issue, and it's a standard subject of commentaries and criticism as well.  A few examples of the latter, courtesy of Google Books:   I acknowledge the legitimate concerns and good arguments for merger expressed by other editors, but I do think this is a legitimate topic that goes beyond the boundaries of the Ten Commandments.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it could be userfied until it is ready for inclusion in article space? I am still not convinced that it should remain in article as it stands, but I would support userfying it --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfication would still constitute removing sourced content from the mainspace, so I'm afraid I would object to that.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -- This is a key Biblical passage, both for Jews and Christians, dealing with the opening phrase of the Ten Commandments. That article is already a substantial one, and merging it would not be appropriate.  This article provides a broad commentary on the views on the views of both concerning the passage, and is probably close to deserving GA status.  I certainly would not want WP to have a commentary on every verse of the Bible, but to have one on this one is wholly appropriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm no expert, but I don't think this is a fork of Ten Commandments at all. If it must be merged, it would be far more profitable to look at Form criticism, Documentary hypothesis or especially Jahwist as targets. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Jeremy (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep reasons: 1) The phrase occurs in many places in the bible other than the decalogue.  2) There is significant information here and, really, you can't cram everything into one article (i.e. Ten Commandmants)  Wikilinks exist so that editors can expand on just this kind of significant information.  I suspect taht the nom is perhaps not familiar with scholarship on the Bible (none of us can know every field) and made a good faith assumption that this as a fork, when it clearly is not.Historicist (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Equally obvious is the need for editing by someone with some familiarity with the scholarly literature. That, of course, applies to half the articles on Wikipedia.   Inadequacy is no reason for deletion. As I have often siad, if editors would spend more time editing and adding information and less time.... Historicist (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Have those claiming original research checked the references? Specifically, what conclusions are drawn that are not in the references?  So far, no one has offered specific examples to support the claim of synthesis or supported the idea that there is enough synthesis to justify wholesale deletion or userfication rather than the more common improvement process by the broader editorial community.  The bulk of the article is direct description of material in secondary sources.  There are no "verify source", "unreferenced", or "syn" tags in the article.  Shouldn’t this have been done before nominating the article for deletion, per WP:BEFORE?  How much of the original 5700+ word article could the original AfD nominator have read in 12 minutes between the article being posted and his proposed deletion - allowing zero time to notice the posting. How much checking of sources could have been done?  The burden of evidence is met for most of this article.  It is imperfect (see WP:Imperfect, WP:Preserve), but it is an acceptable start, and above average in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, neutral point of view, notability, and encyclopedic content.Corinne68 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - debate previously closed by me as Nom withdrawn - reopened per request.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:18, 10 September 2009 (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.