Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:16

I am re-opening this VfD in line with the expansion of this to include very verse of John 20. See Votes for deletion/John 20. Please vote below the colored box. RickK 09:39, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Oldak Quill 20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John 20:16
Original research. The original poster (I almost wrote "creator") indicates that he/she intends to create an article to discuss every Bible passage. RickK 07:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to explain every single verse in any written work, and as RickK said above, it looks like the writer intends someone to write articles on other verses too. -- KittySaturn 08:00, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia, to include some information about every passage of the gospel. A lot of (Christian) people might very well be interested in such articles, and if Wikipedia can provide good, neutral information about every passage, then I think it is only positive. Also, the article is in my opinion not a low quality article, and include some good references. Stereotek 08:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have a friend who is an established atheist (he willingly gets into impromptu debates) but he regularly reads the Bible because he feels that it is a good source of morals. He doesn't believe that all the stories are true, he just believes that they are parables. Besides, if someone wants to read the Bible, but doesn't have their own copy, wouldn't it be good for them to have a resource that they can refer to that has commentary built in? Stale Fries 15:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of online resources for such people (Eg. ). Wikipedia is NOT one of them. It is an encyclopedia.--ZayZayEM 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the reason stated by RickK and KittySaturn, I think this kind of material is better suited at Wikibooks or some other sibling project.. --EnSamulili 08:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwikify. Very improtant information, even i (as anti-christian church as one gets) would find such an article a worthwile addition to wiki. Hope to see more in the future. Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )
 * That was what I was thinking too. It is not because that the information is not good that it should be deleted; rather, it should appear somewhere else. -- KittySaturn 10:10, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a worthy project, but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Divine Comedy is a good example of a work that is Encyclopedic in scope, where one can literally write pages of material for every passage. Indeed, there is a 6 volume encyclopedia that does just that. But if someone where to try and do that on Wikipedia, it likely would not be accepted. In the same sense, The Bible is certainly the greatest literature in the world, but I don't see Wikipedia as a "bible encyclopedia" (they do exist). There are many specialized encyclopedias in the world. I would say keep if this was a "notable" passage. --Stbalbach 09:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There is no reason why this, and every other Biblical verse cannot have an article on Wikipedia - and I'm not even a Christian! Wikipedia, is afterall, not paper. Ultimately, there is no reasonable reason to not include such articles in Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 09:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't matter to you that this is original research? RickK 09:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is original research? --Oldak Quill 09:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there certainly aren't any references, or any names that the article mentions that make these claims. They're just baldly-stated opinions disguised as facts.  RickK 09:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not recall a lack of references ever being a qualification for deletion. The article does not put forth any particular POV or controvetial statements. I think it is a simple matter of requesting that the writer simply supply references. --Oldak Quill 10:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not original research. It's a pretty normal explanation of the passage. DJ Clayworth 22:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi OldakQuill, you mentioned that there is no reason why not every verse shouldn't have an article. But don't you think it belongs somewhere else, like Wikibooks as suggested above?  Since for one thing we wouldn't even include the full text of the Bible here, let alone commentary... -- KittySaturn 10:14, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no reason why every single verse cannot have an article if they are well written, factually accurate, and varifiable. I do not think it should be on Wikibooks as these would be essentially encyclopaedic articles - Wikibooks serves to hold coherent projects on non-encyclopaedic isseus (such as WikiJuniors and language learning). A full text of the bible is located at Wikisources - we could add anchors to the text at each verse and link straight to them. Verses are so short, in general, that their full text may be included in the encyclopaedic articles about them. Nothing in the Wikipedia deletion policy justified the deletion of this article. --Oldak Quill 10:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Crackerbarrel theology is no more simple-minded than a separate entry for every failed garage band or every Pokemon character, so I would have voted Abstain except for the Links section: imagine the list of links at many entries if this is encouraged.... --Wetman 10:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have studied the Bible at University - not some trailer a Fundamentalist has set up in his backyard, but a well respected secular University in Australia. The Bible is both historical and literary. The level of detail that Biblical scholars (from all theological persuasions) have worked on in the past 4-500 years is almost unmatched in any other area of human scholastic endeavour. We're not talking about "Crackerbarrel theology", we're talking about the study of divinity. One Salient Oversight 05:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'''THIS IS A HOT TOPIC THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS. WE NEED JIMBO TO MAKE HIS OPINIONS KNOWN.''' --One Salient Oversight 05:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not original research, having read both references. It is what it has to be: terciary source. I (and I think everybody) would really love to read pages of material for every passage of Divine Comedy. For this Bible matter, it also would be great if we could have at each article/passage the interpretation of each different church which worship the Bible and, maybe, scholar version of what really happened (if applicable). --euyyn 10:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a bible. Darwinek 11:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles on the bible does not render something a bible. This is hardly reasonable justification. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imagine that there is a Wikipedia entry for every verse of the Bible. Each entry contains a few different translations of the verse, along with a summary of the context in which the verse occurs. By starting at the Genesis 1:1 link, and following the Next Verse links, it would be possible to read the entire Bible in Wikipedia, in several different translations at once, but with an enormous amount of redundant summarizing. The entire text of the Bible does not become encyclopedic just because it is entered a verse at a time. --Zarquon 11:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, nor does the keeping or deletion of this article mean we will have an article on EVERY verse. Please vote on this verse alone, policy may be made elsewhere. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this material, especially since it's discussing a particularly important event. But please don't try to do it verse-by-verse, do it in larger chunks. Every verse needs too much context, even this one doesn't contain enough by itself. So hopefully merge this with a larger unit. Kappa 11:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to agree that this should be split up into chunks. Most Bibles (if not all) come pre-organized in chunks that make sense, with titles that summarize the contents of each chunk. Stale Fries 15:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we can have a separate page on each article, clause and amendment of the US Constitution, then why not on each of the more interesting (but not all!) verses of the Bible? – Kpalion (talk) 13:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for all reasons stated above. adamsan 13:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and if some parts are original research, remove them, I'm not saying they are. bbx 13:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that this page matches any of the conditions for deletion, in and of itself. So long as the article is well written.  In addition, rather than simply getting 16 different christian outlooks on a given verse, we will also get different outlooks.  When he gets around to Ezekiel 25:17 we can add a reference to it's use in Pulp Fiction, and for John 3:16 Stone Cold Steve Austin 3:16 might be appropriate.
 * Keep. This level of detail is precisely what makes wikipedia interesting. If we want to be the "sum of human knowledge" nothing can be too specialized. Linking can be a practical problem - but in practice it's highly unlikely every verse will have its lemma. If views are too personal, objectify them. If research is too original (a very rare occasion) find better supported data. MWAK--84.27.81.59 13:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If passages in the bible are allowed, where does it stop? The Qur'an, the Talmud, the Tao Ching? Every last sonnet by Shakespeare? Alex.tan 13:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not? It would be still more interesting and valid for an encyclopedia than articles on every character in The Simpsons. – Kpalion (talk) 13:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. Keep. Samaritan 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * An emphatic keep. I would strongly support an article on any Bible verse, or on various divisions of any major religious text. Everyking 14:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would, however, encourage articles about longer passages rather than single verses for most of the Bible. &mdash;Bkell 14:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no valid reason for deletion. MMCarvalho.
 * Delete.  Dare I call it bible-cruft?   It is unencyclopedic to have articles on specific Bible passages, and I'm appalled at the idea that someone is going to start writing articles on every passage in the Bible.   If someone argues that if it is unencyclopedic to have an article about every Bible passage then it is unencyclopedic to have one on every Star Trek episode: Yes, true, that is what the despised deletionists have been trying to tell you.   A general encyclopedia gives an overview and summary of every topic of note within human knowledge.   But general encyclopedias are just one kind of book in the library; they don't aim to *be* the library. Wikipedia does not replace the Internet or the Library of Congress.   Among the other books in the library besides general encyclopedias are "encyclopedias" on specific topics, the "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction", the "Encyclopedia of Jazz", or the "Encyclopedia of American High Schools", etc.   Is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia? Or is it the "Encyclopedia of X for all X?    The two are not the same, and the inability to decide is tearing the place apart.  The "Encyclopedia of X, for all X" should be organized differently than a general encyclopedia, for one thing. Somehow this must be decided.  Regarding this specific article: it is original research. Even if it were cleaned up, it shouldn't be an article. If this passage it is an especially notable passage, it should be covered in one of the serveral articles that we already have on Bible topics. --BM 14:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if Wikipedia was treated as though it were indeed paper despite the general understanding that it is not, then we would have far fewer readers and far fewer editors, and those of us who were left would be doing a lot less good. Everyking 14:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason why we shouldn't have articles on notable passages in the Bible, Quran, Bhaghavad Gita, Torah or whatever though I don't think all passages from such belong here - more in wikibooks. -- Francs2000 | Talk  14:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwikibooks. Major verses could be encyclopedic, and this one probably is.  But a project to do the same on every verse (per Talk:John 20:16) is more detail than is appropriate here, and John 20:16 will work much better in that context.  Furthermore, while this particular article is not original research, an expanded project will almost certainly devolve in that direction. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, please justify in terms of this article - not some concept of "an article on every single verse". Regardless, Wikipedia is not paper, and these articles are certainly not in too much depth. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the creator I obviously want this to be kept. I am shocked that some see this as original research, since I am far from a Biblical scholar and am not even a believer and couldn't do such research if I wanted to.  Almost all the information comes from the two sites I listed as references.  While I would be delighted to see an article on every verse, I do not intend to create them any time soon as I do not have the expertise or the interest, but I hope that this pilot article encourages others to work in this area.  My hope is that in several years we might have the whole Bible covered. - SimonP 15:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that the charges against this article are pretty much settled, based on what I have have seen. The author has just stated that almost none of the research is original, and that all of the third-party research can be found at the two links at the bottom. Also, about the dilemma of having an "article to discuss every Bible passage" has been at least been fixed by having larger portions of text for each page, essentially condensing the amount of "paper" used. Based on this, I think this is a Keep. Stale Fries 16:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Line-by line textual analysis of individual books spread across masses of individual articles is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. This presents an almost unimaginably vast potential for original research submissions and never-ending POV wars across masses of articles.  And, finally, you know that something is a bad idea if if makes the Digimon-cruft look reasonable in comparison. Transwiki or Delete. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed above. We would just create articles with bigger passages on each page, reducing the amount of "wasted paper". I have to admit that the discussion of this verse may be lengthy, and some people might not like that. But, I do know that their are people out there who would suck up all that information and would ask "is that it? But I don't know everything I was wondering about!" Keep. Stale Fries 16:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate for this encyclopedia. At least when it comes to major religious works that have been analyzed innumerable times over the centuries. If the thought of having more content scares you, well, you could just carve out one little corner of the encyclopedia to work on and just forget the rest of it exists. Everyking 16:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hesitant keep ONLY if this is considered a major verse (also isn't this the verse you see on billboards, etc?). There are tens of thousands of verses in the Bible and I do not support the idea of every one having an article. Being included in the Bible is not, IMO, necessarily a sole criteria for notability. Perhaps the creation of a Bible-Wiki should be considered if that's the case. But I'm OK with keeping articles on major verses, but I'm not well-versed enough with the Bible (no pun intended) to judge whether this is one or not. Also, interpretations of the Bible range so widely that I fear the more controversial ones would turn this place into a battleground. 23skidoo 16:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't have an article on every verse in the Bible.  Particularly notable ones?  Fine.  John_3:16 makes sense; it's a particularly notable verse, and often referred to by chapter and verse.  This verse doesn't rise to that level of notability. Josh Cherry 16:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is on a single verse, not the presence of all verses being on Wikipedia. Please therefore vote with this in mind. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scared by the "Gosepl of John" (sic) box underneath, which implies articles on ALL bible verses. All bible verses, no. Notable ones, OK. Niteowlneils 17:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The prospect of deleting an article on a notable Bible verse is what scares me. On the other hand, I can safely say that having more information on similar topics does not frighten me at all. Everyking 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are many places to discuss Bible verses. Wikipedia is not one of them. Carrp | Talk 18:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and I'm an atheist. If there was some sort of threshold policy for allowing articles on Biblical passages, it could lead to Wikipedians wasting a vast amount of time arguing about each case which they could otherwise spend editing articles, so let's allow the lot. The whole of the Bible is really important, though I probably won't ever read any of the articles. Philip 18:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge. Darwinek says above "Wikipedia is not a bible". This article is not the Bible it is exegesis which is thoroughly encyclopedic. Everybody has forgotten their Latin - the article noli me tangere (John 20:17) has been there since 13 September 2003 without ever suffering a VfD debate. I think these articles will be allowed if we allay people's fears about "an article for every verse of the bible". I recommend a speedy merge of John 20:16, John 20:17, and noli me tangere into a single article covering John 20:11-18. -- RHaworth 18:54, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion if article is NPOV and no original research. If someone makes an encylopedic entry for each verse (or longer as suggested above) which meets those guidelines then they should all be allowed in because Wiki is not paper (see no size limit argument)
 * Strong Delete as original research, further, this is not (IMO) a helpful theological classification, since it promotes lots of content duplication. Wyss 21:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is original research. Why does it promote lots of content duplication? --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, POV and probably not salvageable as such. I don't think size is a problem, but it sets the precedent for Wikipedia to contain a full biblical commentary. When this happens, it will be nearly impossible to avoid POV from creeping in, edit wars when someone else notices, and so on. Creates opportunity not only for Christian vs. Christian debates, but for non-Christian attacks on Christianity as well. Also note that this isn't John 3:16 that shows up on billboards etc. that someone above suggested. Wesley 22:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Potential conflict and controversy is irrelevant. We've never shied away from topics for that reason. Edit wars are a fact of life here. Everyking 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The theology here is pretty standard - no original research or POV. More people read the Bible than watch Star Trek. Some people teach whole lectures on short bible passages. So why shouldn't we have articles on key passages. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Count another atheist voting 'keep. Any Bible verse should be a legitimate topic, as long as it's written in a manner appropriate to Wikipedia, which this appears to be. No more or less subject to POV issues than a thousand other topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * If keeping this will lead to an article on every Bible passage then Delete. This is a bad idea. Have an artricle on each book, perhaps some for individual chapters, when necessary, but not each verse. This isn't Bible camp. -R. fiend 23:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and pass on the WikiCities link - A project explaining the verses of the bible sounds just up their alley. humblefool&reg; 23:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe have an article for multiple verses, instead of verse by verse. --Matteh (talk) 00:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if the article did include "original research" (which I don't believe), that is only a reason to delete an article if the subject itself is original research (i.e., someone's pet scientific theory), not just if the article's content may include original research about the subject, in which case editing would be the solution.  I disagree with above request to merge with surrounding verses; I actually came across this looking for a separate article on noli me tangere and was delighted to find one.  After a couple milennia of scholarship and translations, I'd be surprised if there wasn't an article's worth of information to give about every Bible verse.  Postdlf 00:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. Also allowing this precedent will open a Biblical floodgate on an article for every verse or chapter in the Bible. This would in the long term IMO not be in the best interests for Wikipedia. Megan1967 02:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Desperately needs merging as suggested above. Bible verses date from the 16th century and are not appropriate "units" for discussing Biblical text; they are useful as references, not as snippets misconstrued as being meaningful in isolation. As we says elsewhere, "the impulse of people to conceive of verses as units of syntactical meaning, though baseless, is strong... Interpretation of isolated verses often leads to imputed meanings that are at odds with those that would be derived from the same words in their Biblical context." If Wikipedia is to have useful articles concerning Biblical content, they can't be based on verses. Previous experiments along these lines have pretty effectively demonstrated this. - Nunh-huh 03:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Delete. Start up a Biblewiki if you want.  Flyers13 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete from Wikipedia. Seems like an appropriate exercise for Wikibooks however.  Rossami (talk) 05:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Keep. The Bible is one of the most widely read books in human history and its contents have been at the basis of many decisions made by leaders throughout this history. Sometimes these actions can depend upon the interpretation of a particular verse. Many of you do not realise that Bible commentaries come from a wide variety of commentators, from conservative evangelical to atheistic liberal. Every commentator seeks to explain what a verse is about and understand it from a linguistic, grammatical and historical perspective. I am one who will argue very strongly for Wikipedia articles that cover every verse in the Bible (which does not mean an article for every verse). Because Wikipedia is not a religious publishing company, these articles should (eventually) reflect every single point of view about the verse, along with refutations of every point of view. If you go to your local university library you will find many books from many different points of view that examine certain books and verses in the Bible, and what they mean. Go to Size_comparisons - you will find that the 10,000 monographs on Chemical compounds are listed as a potential growth area in Wikipedia, along with each of the 20,000 human genes, 24,500 common law legal terms and so on. These should get a mention, why not Bible verses? There is a growing multitude of Christian theology-related articles and many of these articles refer back to Bible verses. Maintaining NPOV will be a problem, but even if an article on a verse is written badly, then the solution is a re-write, not a deletion. Ask this question - in ten years time when Wikipedia hits 100 million articles, do you expect that Bible verses be included in this? Please check my userpage for the many Christian theology related articles that I have been working on. --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. -- RHaworth 08:09, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)


 * Another vote to Keep. The Bible is certainly a major subject, regardless of one's religious beliefs, and there is worthwhile information to be written all the way down to the level of individual verses. MK2 07:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(No vote - I voted above.) I have just taken a brief trip over to Category:Sura. I am bitterly disappointed to find that most of the articles within it are merely stubs. But I think it sets a precedent for Biblical articles to be at the Chapter level rather than the verse level.

The terms POV and NPOV are being used by the deletionists in this discussion without making clear whether they mean: Consider the following: The first is totally NPOV - it is central to the Creed of those Christian sects which have one. The second is barefaced evangelism and has no place in Wikipedia.
 * different POV's among Christians - of which sadly there are many but which I think Wiki can handle
 * differing POV's between Christians and other religions - which is something which must be discussed and above all accepted.
 * "Christians accept Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour"
 * "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved"

May I propose the following boilerplate to be made into a template and inserted into every New Testament article in Category:Bible verses (with ones similar in spirit for the Old Testament and Apocrypha)

Digression. I remember attending a service conducted by Hugh Montefiore. Before we sang the hymn The Church's one foundation, Hugh requested that we remain silent on the words yet one o'er all the earth on the grounds that Christians are far from being one. -- RHaworth 09:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Please. That's a load of hogs-wallop. You are asserting that all Christians should beleive that all faiths are on an equal plain as their own. I don't think so. That's just relativity. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this alternative? MK2 08:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What does that phrase even mean, "but which deserve equal respect?" Do you have any basis for asserting that this is the view of "most Christians," or are you prescribing what you would like it to be? The first version was certainly that, when it said "all right-thinking Christians..." reminded me of the Monty Python sketch about all "right-thinking people." Wesley 04:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant Bible passages appear to be legitimate topics for articles (not necessarily every single verse, but in many cases individual verses are important). But an emphatic no to the template suggested by RHaworth. The articles should not represent "a consensus of what professing Christians believe"! There is no way that could be NPOV, and where does that leave Jewish interpretations of passages in the Hebrew Bible? The articles have to represent the views of academic Bible scholars and historians. References to reputable scholarly publications are essential here. / up land 09:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My grovelling apologies re the boiler plate. To see Christian and Jewish interpretations of Old Testament verses together in the same article is exactly what I want. -- RHaworth 19:23, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that they should be here. Ta bu shi da yu 09:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I voted for delete above. However, I think the most notable verses of the Bible or comparable works do deserve an article (I wouldn't vote to delete John 3:16), but absolutely, absolutely not every verse - I don't see why an encyclopaedia would do something like that.  If someone wants to do a project to explain every Bible verse, they should set up another wiki elsewhere on the web, and it will be a lot more effective because people wanting to know about Bible verses will go there, whereas people don't expect an encyclopaedia to have this sort of material.  It is not a matter of Wiki is not paper; if appropriate an encyclopaedia will include it even if it is paper, just like volumes after volumes of the printed Oxford Dictionary.  Anyway, instead, in my opinion, there can be articles that discuss more than one verse, or a chapter.  However, I am still of the opinion that this kind of articles belongs to a more specialised site than one like Wikipedia.  As an example, there seems to be an abundance of maths articles in Wikipedia, but people who want to know about this mathematical term or that mathematical object will tend to go to a site that is specifically mathematical like MathWorld, so those articles in Wikipedia seem actually somewhat useless. -- KittySaturn 10:38, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * So presumably we should have no maths entries as MathWorld is more specialised, no film entries because imdb is better, no country entries because heck the CIA world factbook exists? Why bother with anything at all, people can just google right? Fuzz 12:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I see nothing wrong with the article so far. Wikipedia should be able to accommodate anything that is factual and accurate. Let's see where this project goes. Shantavira 12:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is little evidence that the article or the verse it refers to is accurate. Wyss 13:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Strong delete. Whatever. Listen, we can make a WikiBible if you guys want. But the base nature of Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, not a textual commentary. Furthermore, the WikiBible Project would be its own self-contained project about specific knowledge regarding a specific field. It is simply too big of a project to include a Bible commentary in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to engulf PubMed, and it is not meant to engulf an ongoing Biblical commentary. We already have things like Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, et cetera. That is how the Wikipedia is meant to operate--with encyclopedia articles. Again, the WikiBible looks nice, but it deserves its own project, and is too specific for the WikiBible. Drostie 03:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I would be adverse to a paagr in every vere of the bible, this appears to a significant one. The article itself is comprehensive and well written exploring its meaning and cultural impact. Capitalistroadster 16:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep. I see no problem with Wikipedia entries for notable Biblical passages likely to be referred to elsewhere.  Note that I don't believe there is any reason for an entry on every verse in the Bible.  That level of granularity is best addressed by a well-stocked library. --TenOfAllTrades 00:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are but few single Biblical verses so notable they merit their own articles, and this is not one of them.  However, I see no problem for articles for each individual book of the Bible.  Edeans 05:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia should have articles on each book of the Bible. For some books, a separate article on each chapter may be justified. But not an entire article on every single verse. (Can anyone imagine a Wikipedia-worthy article being written on, say, Matthew 1:13 or Genesis 36:41?) John 20 is a very significant chapter in Christianity, but an article covering the entire chapter is sufficient. --Angr 15:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Matthew 1:13? - SimonP 17:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I definitely want WP to explain what, if anything, is known about these names, but please at least deal with the whole list of begetters in one chunk. I can't even tell how far it is froom the beginning and end. Kappa 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete. And ditto for all similar articles. I think an article on each book (including Gnostics) should be enough for Wikipedia. Any analysis of verses is likely to be severely P.O.V. (Even if its only a generalised Christian P.O.V.) - Also an attempt would be needed to be made to do likewise for the Qu'ran, and then every Hindu sacred text (and they can get pretty long).--ZayZayEM 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Any subject can be dealt with according to NPOV. POV, or potential to become POV, is no reason to delete anything. And saying that we would need similar articles for other religious texts would be like saying to delete an article on James Buchanan if there wasn't one on Millard Fillmore. Everyking 13:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And ditto for all similar articles. I think an article on each book (including Gnostics) should be enough for Wikipedia. (all else was accessory). I think individual verses should be deleted on grounds of notability and encyclopedic value.--ZayZayEM 07:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Drostie - right on the money Albatross2147 14:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - WikiMedia does not operate in content forks, only media forks. Such a WikiBible would be a forking of Wikimedia content with no difference in media. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia cannot contain articles on individual verses. --Oldak Quill 20:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


 * Keep, again. Everyking 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would consider this an invalid listing. It has already been nominated and, by community consensus, it was kept. --Oldak Quill 09:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * People get to nominate articles as often as they like. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 10:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as per original decision after this VfD debate - there is no new information. As RickK had already highlighted when opening this VfD on 5 Feb that "The original poster (I almost wrote "creator") indicates that he/she intends to create an article to discuss every Bible passage."  All previous votes were thus aware that there was that intention.  We now have another vote going at Votes for deletion/John 20 - why two votes simultaneously, why revote when no new info? --AYArktos 10:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep again, as per OldakQuill and Kappa. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. up land 07:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Again. Still not original research, still notable, still encyclopedic Fuzz 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)