Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names


 * 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 and improve. Many of the arguments for deletion focus on apparent inaccuracies in the list, but if there is any valid, verified information on the list that argument does not hold water. AFD is not for cleaning up an article, it's a discussion of whether we should have an article at all. Likewise, having redlinks or bluelinks that point to dab pages is something that can be fixed by editing the article. Clearly, the list is not perfect, but perfection is not required. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Biblical names

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A substantial number of discussions have been conducted on the talk page of this article relating the inaccuracy of the definitions included on this page, all of which trace back to a single source which, judging by the specific errors alleged, is simply unreliable. Unfortunately, these inaccuracies are presently being defended on the theory that Wikipedia can prevent information that we know to be inaccurate so long as we point to the source from which our inaccurate information derives. The page also has other problems. Short of a massive search-and-verify effort, there is no way to have any confidence that all of these names appear in the Bible at all, or that all are used as names in the Bible. It is a massive disambig/redlink farm, and many, of not most, links on the page are for articles that will never, ever be made because they are for a name used once in the Bible and never again, in any other context. This also makes the page simply redundant to the much better-developed List of minor Biblical figures, and List of Biblical places. To the extent that it is useful to present one author's inaccurate collection of definitions, which happen to be in the public domain, the work belongs at Wikisource, not in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) ~
 * Keep and reference. Should the information turn out to come from a single source, transwiki to Wikisource instead. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - FYI - This article is a direct copy and paste of the entire Hitchcock dictionary, word for word, from start to finish. It is in the public domain, so it is not a copyright violation.  However, it belongs at Wikisource.  LordGorval argues below that the list can be backed up and verified by the other sources mentioned in the article.  However, the content of the article itself is a word-for-word copy of a Bible dictionary, from A to Z.     talk 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Delete They have multiple sources. Turns out that Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary from "Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible" is part of Bible Study Tools where most of the definitions can be verified and backed up by their table of Torrey's New Topical Textbook, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and Nave's Topical Bible. Take for example the first one of Aaron: a teacher; lofty; mountain of strength. It gives further extensive details by clicking on the blue link letters of the various bibles and dictionaries herein mentioned. They are already referenced as 1, 2, 3, and in "External Links." The References are already described in the lede.--LordGorval (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of what is wrong. A while ago, I removed "Attalus" from the list. It turns out that, despite the word's appearance on the list (apparently coming from that inaccurate source), it appears nowhere in the Bible. Perhaps Hitchcock was pulling a fast one, making up meanings (and, in some instances falsely claiming things as Biblical names), in order to turn the Bible into dollars in his pocket. Whatever the motivation, and whatever sources the work claims to be collated from, this is shoddy work. Names on this list should be backed up by some actual scholarship, and should actually exist in the Bible. Disambig links and red links should be unlinked unless and until there is actually an entry on the individual named in the Bible. We have, of course, Wikipedia articles on "Gina" and "Hen" which appear on this list, but we do not have (and will never have) articles on a Biblical "Gina" and "Hen" - because there is no "Gina" in the Bible, and the only mention of a person named "Hen" is the following: "The crown will be given to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the LORD." Zechariah 6:14 (New International Version; does not appear at all in the King James Version. Why we would continue to perpetrate this fraud is beyond me. It is true that we used Britannica 1911 as seed material for many of our articles, but we corrected its errors, rather than defending their inclusion. bd2412  T 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to be a little flexible when looking up these words. Maybe you can not find that EXACT spelling, however you can find Attalia which shows up in Christian Classics Ethereal Library of Calvin College which is reference # 2 for further sources and references for the names (look in their infobox of "Other Dictionaries"). Remember to be a little flexible on the spelling and you will probably find what you are looking for. Every once in awhile, like what you demonstrated, the EXACT spelling of today might not be there. Look for variants. C.C.E.L. has additional Dictionaries and sources for these words besides what Bible Study Tools has in there table of additional Bible Dictionaries. Most names will have several sources as you can see if you go through a few dozen or more. Remember, there are variant spellings of approximately the same word.--LordGorval (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why I would like to see a citation to an actual Bible verse for each name asserted to have been used in the Bible. Frankly, I see no benefit to listing multiple sources for the names and definitions if there is no way to tell offhand which source corresponds with which name. Ideally, we should have multiple unrelated sources in support of the definition claimed for each name. bd2412  T 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, on further reflection, no, I do not "have to be a little flexible" when looking up these words, any more than I need to be flexible in allowing an article to say that 2 + 2 = 5. At the least, at the very least, the unreliable information should be removed, and not returned until indicia of reliability can be introduced, in a footnote. bd2412  T 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to an article on the publication and start another one on this topic. We should have such a list, even if we do not have articles on each one. (My own feeling is we could probably find enough for articles even on a name given once with nothing said about it, because there will be commentaries discussing it, at least from  mystical or linguistic standpoints) Quite apart from Hitchcock, dozens of secondary sources discuss every name in the bible . The major reference I know is The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible  but there are many others. To transcribe a list of names from a copyright source is not a violation of copyright--to copy the information they give about them would be.   DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is basically a "Name Your Baby" list that expectant parents look at to find out what a name "means", except that it's less encyclopedic. It's drawn from one source which, since it's public domain, was free-- and it's worth what was paid for it.  Thus, we are told that "Aaron", is a word in some language (might be Hebrew, might not be) in which the word means "teacher".  Or maybe it means "lofty".  Or maybe it's "mountain of strength".  Abez means "an egg", or maybe it means "muddy".  I like the three meanings for "Caleb" (a dog; a crow; a basket -- take your pick).  Fun stuff like this was an essential in Wikipedia's early days, but it isn't 2002 anymore.  If kept, put a disclaimer at the top of it. Mandsford 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this supposed to be list of names from the bible (like names that people are given from biblical sources) or list of names in the bible (names mentioned in the bible no matter the context)? Because names (or characters if you want) in the bible would seem to be a Religion topic, and the other would be an anthronym topic.--Savonneux (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also this list which is far more informative about bible characters List_of_minor_Biblical_figures.--Savonneux (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We could move this article to project space and merge some of the info into List of minor Biblical figures as appropriate references to actual Biblical use are provided. However, note that this is not merely a list of people, but of places and tribes as well. The list itself gives zero guidance as to whether a particular name on it belongs to a person, a city, a supernatural being, a holy day, whatever. bd2412  T 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Im seeing that. Clicked on some random ones. So it's every proper noun in the Bible. Kinda comes down to "With a search box do you need cross references like this anymore?"--Savonneux (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Apparently all the issues (definitions, "red links" and "yellow" Javascript) of the nominator has been addressed and answered to the satisfaction of the nominator since he is now only concerned that each word gets an individual inline citation. Obviously the only reason for this is IF the article is not deleted and is planning on being around into the future. I interpret this as the nominator withdrawing the deletion nomination.--LordGorval (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Note. Why would the nominator want individual definitions for 2500 words if the article were to be deleted within a couple of weeks? This task would require a couple of years. Obviously the nominator believes the article is going to be around for a couple of years. How else could the task get done unless the nominator wants the article around for at least a couple of years?--LordGorval (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) The nominator knew about the references for each letter as he fixed the broken section headers on May 19. Obviously he accepts those as references, otherwise he would have removed these references and explained why he had done so. Just as obvious is that all the concerns the nominator had (i.e. definitions themselves, "red links", "yellow" Javascript) is resolved and the ONLY thing he wants now is alternate sources for the definitions. All he has to do is look at those sources that he already approved (i.e. letter "A") and all the additional information he needs is there. For example click on Aaron and it indicates detailed entries from Nave's Topical Bible, Baker's Evangelical Dictionary, Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary. This follows a format very similar to Featured Lists I have found. List of American Idol finalists gives only a reference (one time at top of table) of their ages and no other references for the table, even though it asserts other facts (i.e. Name, Hometown, Season, Finished). List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates gives two references at the top of the table (one time each) and does not reference other individual facts like Season, Name, Hometown and Finish. List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests also only has two references (one time each) at the top of the table and does not reference Season, Name, Profession, Status or Finish. I could give a few dozen more Featured Lists that shows this point (a reference one time at the top of the section), but I believe you can see my point. There is already a reference for each letter one time at the top of the section - all one has to do for further information on any name is click the reference and the name - similar to what is demonstrated in Featured Lists. The nominator can not speak with a forked tongue and have it both ways. His actions have demonstrated he has withdrawn the deletion nomination. It looks to me like he is satisfied with all his complaints and is just now squabbling over points of Manual of Style and how they are interpreted by individuals. He obviously wants the article around for some time since he asked "Perhaps you should begin providing citations to the Bible and alternate sources for the definitions for the names presented..." This task he is requesting would take some time (i.e. one day, one week, one month each) so he sees the article being around then for at least 7 years and possible as long as 50 years. The nominator actions demonstrate he has withdrawn the deletion nomination.--LordGorval (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove meanings the meanings given are allegedly from a public domain work, but this is not verified, and by adding the meanings here, gives them legitimacy, as if we are confirming these meanings as true. I can see the value of a list of all proper nouns in the bible, and since we have links to the articles around the names on this list, thats a nice function, but i dont see how we can list the meanings: this is one persons possibly idiosyncratic definitions, and it would take a whole lot of research to confirm if even one of the meanings here is generally considered a concise, accurate meaning. if someone wants to additionally transwiki this in its entirety somewhere else, i bet it would fit in elsewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary - a list of dicdefs ; the list itself could work as a Wiktionary appendix, while each definition can be broken into a wiktionary entry. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was already done, quite some time ago. A transwiki of the current list would be useful in reconciling discrepancies that have arisen between the lists since then. However, since the issue is the inaccuracy of the definitions in the list itself, it does not belong at Wiktionary either. If anywhere, it should be moved to Wikisource. bd2412  T 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the list is basically the same as it was when started in 2002. I don't see where the "issue" is the inaccuracy of the definitions. No editor in this debate has brought up this "issue" other than the nominator - apparently to discredit the list. If the nominator could give some examples, then perhaps I could compare to C.C.L.E. and Bible Study Tools resources to see what he is talking about. If it is such an "issue" then the nominator should easily come up with several examples - instead of just using words to discredit the article. Since the inception of the article it has been viewed approximately a half a million times, however the definitions have stayed the same.--LordGorval (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just about everything in the Bible is notable due to centuries of scholarship. The nomination's complaint is that the article is imperfect but AFD is not cleanup and it is not our editing policy to just delete and start afresh.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this list is irreparable, particularly so long as some prefer its present, inaccurate and inadequately sourced list of names and definitions, and revert efforts to clean up that much of it. Would you agree that the definitions should be removed, and no definition should be restored unless it is sourced to reliable research, and unless the word is shown to actually occur in the Bible? bd2412  T 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is basically the same list as when it was first introduced back in 2002. The length is basically the same (100K vs 108k) and has expanded little over the last 8 years. The nomination's complaint that it might be "inaccurate" in some places probably is correct; however he has given no examples on his guess of this. The list of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary as part of Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible was written by Roswell Dwight Hitchcock. From the Wikipedia article and what I could find in Google Books, he seems to be a credible theologian. Calvin College uses this in their Christian Classics Ethereal Library and apparently they feel comfortable in using it and feel it is basically accurate. They have additional sources and references for most of the words in their infobox "Other Dictionaries", so there is much in the way of information on each of the definitions.--LordGorval (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So far the only "issue" I have seen from the nominator is the word Attalus. That definition given by Hitchcock is increased. The word before of Attalia is given as that increases. From Bible Study Tools of their resource of Smith's Bible Dictionary it says that it is from Attalus. Close enough for me to be convinced that Hitchcock was on the right track. Perhaps the nominator could give some better examples of the "issue" he believes as incorrect definitions. So far haven't seen any.--LordGorval (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Gina" was also on the list, and does not appear in the Bible (as I mentioned above). That is not even a translation error, merely a wrong name altogether. How many mistakes must the sole initial source be shown to have before you will acknowledge that we need better sources? I noted in the nomination that there are many comments on the article's talk page about the unreliability of the "translations", and their inconsistency with information in better sourced Wikipedia articles. Here, here, and here, in particular. bd2412  T 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, nothing that you've said addresses the problem of this article being a link farm for red links that will never become articles, and disambig links, most of which will never have the sense of the name as used in one passing reference in the Bible (if it, in fact, appears in the Bible at all). bd2412  T 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another one, Aijeleth Shahar. It is the name given to a Psalm, but the name itself does not appear in the Bible at all, and it is not the name of a person or a place. There is no way of knowing, from the list, that it is non-Biblical, or what it is even the name of. bd2412  T 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The list contains over 2500 names. 1% of that would be 25. If you can come up with 11 that you think might be inaccurate, that would make the article 99 and 44/100th per cent pure. Out of the two you think might be inaccurate, I found Ginath which is Ginnetho, a garden. It has additional information in the Other Dictionaries. Now we are down to one possible definition that might be inaccurate - out of 2500. I can not calculate what per cent that is since it is so small. It makes the article then at least 99.999% accurate.
 * The fact that "Ginath" is in the Bible doesn't excuse the fact that "Gina" is not, and "Gina" was still on the list. Let us not make a false sense of completeness be the enemy of a true sense of correctness. bd2412  T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright I'll give you the fact that "Gina" is not in the bible, even though "Ginath" is. I see you are not flexible in the least. Then you have 2 on your side and I have 2500 on my side that are uncontested. Even IF you find 9 more you believe to be inaccurate then the article is 99 and 44/100th per cent pure. According to calculations then IF your 2 are disputed and you personally believe to be inaccurate then it stands that 99.9992% are correct and accurate.
 * I didn't realize the "issue" was red links. I thought it was your idea of what might be inaccurate definitions. But anyway, I didn't make those red links; however IF they bother you we could remove the linking and make them black. Just by a quick look it appears that around 80% are blue and 20% red links. Whatever the ratio, it looks to me like there are more blues than reds. If it is the 80/20 ratio then about 2000 are presently linked and 500 red links. Does red bother your eyes?--LordGorval (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the issues, it is another issue. Apparently you are not using Javascript. I don't see that much blue, because my Javascript makes disambiguation pages show up as yellow. That means that, despite my extensive efforts to fix this page, there is an abundance of links to disambiguation pages, meaning not to the article that the link should go to (which, in many cases, does not exist at all). For example, the article contains a link to Hen, which I think I pointed out before. Did you know that this article is ranked #2 on the list of articles with the largest number of disambig links? It would still be #1 (as it was a month ago) but for my efforts, but I've only scratched the surface. bd2412  T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused - which "issue" are you complaining about. First you told me it was inaccurate definitions, THEN "red links"; now its "yellow" Javascript. So, is it "yellow" Javascript why you want to delete the article OR is it something else you haven't brought up yet?--LordGorval (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused also as to why cann't those that show up as "yellow" Javascript just be delinked?--LordGorval (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I made an error in my calculations. It appears that approximately a million views have viewed the article since its inception, not a half million as I stated before. Could you look over the history to verify this. I also see that there are 49 Watchers of the article. Since it appears that approximately a million views have seen the article and 49 Watchers watching the article on a regular basis and basically the definitions are the same as when the article was started in 2002, then apparently there are no objections to the definitions - other than yours, of course.--LordGorval (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A million people could walk by a "YEILD" sign without commenting on it. This does not make it the correct spelling of yield. The fact that unknowning visitors are tricked into accepting wrong information does not make the information right. bd2412  T 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I guess what you are saying is that all these views are "unknowning visitors tricked into accepting wrong information" AND you know what the correct information is. Well for one, I'll stick with Hitchcock and the biblical dictionary sources I provided. I don't know your theological credentials, but I must admit I have learned a lot from this debate (way more than you can even imagine) and it has been a lot of fun since I have pick up on some great ideas.--LordGorval (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not need "theological credentials" to look in the Bible and see that a name appearing on this list does not actually occur in the Bible, at all, or to see that there is a list of examples on the talk page showing contradictions between the definitions listed in this article and our other articles on the same names. I certainly don't need them to see that this article contains zero inline references, either to the Bible, or to the source of any particular definition. bd2412  T 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Calvin College and their Christian Classics Ethereal Library the terms have been viewed over 3 million times since 2005. Perhaps the college and all those viewers have also been "tricked into accepting wrong information".--LordGorval (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be advancing an argument along the lines of "the more that something is read by people, the more correct it becomes". I could write a book on things that are wrong despite having been widely read. Note also, I'm not saying that every single definition on the list is wrong; many of them are undoubtedly correct, but we can not know which ones without comparing them against other sources. If the page is to be kept, the definitions should be removed, and any individual definition should only be restored once the name is shown to actually occur in the Bible by citation to chapter and verse, and shown to have the meaning ascribed, by citation to multiple sources. bd2412  T 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Close. The more that something is read by people, the more likely it is incorrect. Basically the definitions have not changed in 8 years and have remained the same with over 4 million views. I would think if these definitions were not in the bible, it would have long since been noticed and corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordGorval (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that view is that is presumes the people looking at this lengthy list would know what does and does not belong. However, if they already knew all that answers, they wouldn't need to look at the list in the first place. If someone were to add a Biblical-sounding fake name, like putting "Ishban" after Ishbak, or "Japhlo" after Japhlet, do you seriously think anyone would pick those out as not being in the Bible? bd2412  T 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IF someone tried to do as you describe, THEN they somehow would have to get it past the additional sources and references provided for the words. Obviously such an entry would be detected since there would not be additional sources to back it up.--LordGorval (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How would anyone looking at the page know that it wasn't just copied over from Hitchcock, like the rest? There is no means of control. bd2412  T 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that every time db2412 finds a name on the list that doesn't appear in the Bible, someone comes up with a name that is close to that name and claims that it's just an alternate spelling. For instance, Gina = Ginath or Ginnetho, Attalus = Attalia.  Out of a list of 2500 names, you could probably come up with a name that is sufficiently "close" to just about any word in the English language.  "Oh, Birsha isn't in the Bible, try Birchap.  What's that?  Jehohanan isn't in the bible either?  Try Jehobanana."  Either it's in the bible or it's not.  If the confusion is between different translations of the bible, then the list should be standardized on a single translation.     talk 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not withdrawn anything. The article is almost irreparably problematic, and other editors in this deletion discussion have put forward additional rationales for deletion (including the one just below, as the article is indeed an indiscriminate collection of names appearing in the Bible, with no weighing of the relative importance of those names. Suppose we had a list of words appearing in the Bible, listing in alphabetical order each word used in any edition. What use would that be? bd2412  T 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that the majority of "keep" votes in this discussion agree that the meanings should be removed or referenced, or that the article should be made into an article on the publication from which these particular definitions come. That should tell you something. bd2412  T 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can give me your definition of "...made into an article on the publication from which these particular definitions come."--LordGorval (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The meanings of each letter are referenced. For example sources and references for the words with the letter "A" can be found at Bible Study Tools letter "A" and the words with the letter "B" can be found at Bible Study Tools letter "B" and the words with the letter "C" can be found at Bible Study Tools letter "C", etc. The references for that particular letter are at the beginning of each letter. Therefore individual definitions are not needed.--LordGorval (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop posting misleading edit summaries claiming I've withdrawn this nomination? This article's issues are irreparable to the extent that it should be deleted. However, it has not been yet, so I will continue working on it until this discussion is resolved. bd2412  T 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AND you want individual inline citations with multiple detailed references each for 2500 words? How long do you think that task will take to complete? OR maybe you don't want the task to be completed as you are requesting? Why then are you requesting this task to be done IF you don't really want the task to be done? IF you don't want the task to be completed, THEN perhaps you can remove the task requested? UNLESS there is another reason why you have put this task request on the names? WHICH is it, you do want the task done as requested OR you don't want it really done? Why THEN have you put the "citation needed" task request on the names? PERHAPS there is another reason?--LordGorval (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "real question" is whether this article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. Perhaps you should begin providing citations to the Bible and alternate sources for the definitions for the names presented, if you wish to demonstrate that the article is salvageable. bd2412 T 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LordGorval, you are continuing to attempt to influence this discussion through deception, through your false assertions in edit summaries and in this comment asserting that I have "withdrawn the deletion". This is untrue, and it is very immature of you to be continuing in this effort. I intend to seek administrative action with regard to your conduct. I don't know about anyone else here, but I feel that a topic ban prohibiting you from editing Bible-related articles would be an appropriate dissuasion. bd2412  T 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know then how you expect to get 2500 multiple Bible citations (book, chapter and verse) as you are requesting IF the article isn't around. Obviously the article has to be around in order to get this information you are requesting - THEN I can only conclude you have withdrawn your deletion nomination. How can you expect to get your citation requests IF the article isn't around? UNLESS perhaps there is another reason why you put this "citation needed" tag on 2500 words? You know the information is in the reference at the beginning of each letter. You can not have it both ways; that is doubletalk. Just because I interpret the Manual of Style as many Feature Lists do and it does not fit what you want, then the next thing to do is topic ban prohibiting me from editing Bible-related articles. That would be most interesting! Did you ever think to just ask me this? Perhaps IF you ask me real nice, we could talk about that. I personally am not a "religious person", whatever that may be. I don't especially like the "religion" of Christianity, however I do find it most fasinating. There is way more there than you can even imagine. The secrets in Hitchcock's words would reveal some of those secrets, IF only you were paying attention. I for one am not going to let you in on those secrets, because you would come completely unglued. So IF it floats your boat to topic ban prohibiting me from editing Bible-related articles, go for it. But, like I say - it might be eaisier just to ask me. Knowing you however I'll bet you are going to take the hard way, sure as shuten. It will be fun and interesting to see how this plays out.--LordGorval (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LordGorval, regardless of how you interpret the MOS or whatever you're babbling about, there is no arguing the fact that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Therefore, if there is unsourced material in an article, I can challenge it.  If a qualified source exists and anyone cares to provide it, then the content stays.  Otherwise, it gets deleted until someone provides a source.  Just because someone added 2500 names to a list article (with no sources for the majority of them) doesn't mean that they automatically get to remain in the article until someone proves that they're inaccurate.  WP doesn't work that way.  If you're interested enough in this article and you want all 2500 names to stay, then I'd suggest you get started on providing sources for all of the material that is currently tagged with a "Citation needed".
 * Therefore, your logic that the nominator has removed his nomination is completely backwards. What should happen is that this article gets stripped of all of its unsourced content (i.e. all of its content), which results in a blank article, and is therefore speedily deleted.  How's that for logic?    talk 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Mandsford's arguments, possibly transwiki to Wikisource if it is truly all from one source. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 18:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The definitions can be attributed to several sources as Christian Classics Ethereal Library shows. Just click on any name and you will see most have further sources and information in their Other Dictionaries. Also Bible Study Tools has a table of additional Bible Dictionaries and sources. Picking one of them gives their additional sources with a linked letter for the additional information.--LordGorval (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, basically, Wikipedia users can find out which definitions are reliable by going to someone else's website to double check? They would have to, since not a single definition on this page provides a footnote indicating the specific source for that definition, and not a single name cites chapter and verse to demonstrate that it is actually to be found in the Bible. bd2412  T 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We've come a long way from the days that mediocre articles like this one were the standard. The first improvement on a page like this would be to at least list the languages from which a name is derived-- Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc.  The second would be to show the actual etymology, instead of nonsense like "Joseph means increase or addition!", or "'Joseph' is how Hebrew speakers say addition!".  It's possible-- here's a list, for instance, of Hebrew words .  There is some (emphasis on "some") truth to the suggested meaning of names on the list.  Caleb is derived from the Hebrew word for "dog" (Kelev) and Adam derives from "Adom", a Hebrew word for "red".  Wikipedia's individual articles about proper names have gone beyond the dopey "Philip means 'lover of horses'" approach, which is OK for the baby names book, but not for an encyclopedia.  I don't see that there is any interest in making this an encyclopedic article.  Mandsford 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot use as sources for name meanings, Christian websites exclusively. the meanings must either be found in the bible itself, thus self defining (and which must show here or on the main article the chapter and verse where the name is defined), or we must source multiple meanings for names from multiple sources, not just christian sources, but jewish, academic, bible as history, bible as literature, etc: all notable sources in history that have attempted to define these names. thats why i said to strip out the definitions. someone can try to do the exhaustive research, then upon completion, add material back. dont know why someone would do that. Example of how wrong this list is: Jehovah is defined as "self subsisting" but this word or phrase does not appear in the main article on jehovah. you'd think someone at WP would have added that as a meaning at some point, if this source had any authority. its one religious persons nonnotable definition of this name. its like saying, in a list of science terms having "age of universe: 5k yrs" with a mention of bishop usher in passing as the sole source for defining this phrase.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The authority for what names in the Bible mean can be two-fold: modern philology, and also traditional religious interpretation--which in most cases do coincide in this area, for the traditional interpreters were not ignorant of Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. It does not take exhaustive research, it just takes looking in a few of a number of reliable references -- among which the one used for the present state of this article is not included. We do not have to decide ourselves what the names actually do mean--that would be Original Research, we just have to report what people discussing the subject in reliable sources have said they mean.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, a lot of editions of the Bible add appendices that include an alphabetical index, so to speak, of the proper names mentioned therein, so there are sources. The most reliable ones would be those that have etymologies that demonstrate the derivation, some of which may be more sophisticated then the "Adam means 'man of red earth'" variety that is just fine for the "name your baby" paperback.  This one rested on whatever laurels someone thinks they should get for a cut and paste, and never aspired to be anything more than it is.  It doesn't matter to me whether the source is Christian, Jewish, secular, etc., so long as it actually demonstrates that "Adam" is akin to the Hebrew word.  "Joseph" doesn't actually "mean" anything in any language, for instance.  It's essentially the English adaptation (as opposed to Jose in Spanish or Giuseppe in Italian) of the Hebrew "Yusuf".  Rather than simply saying it "means increase or addition" an etymology would point to Hebrew words for various concepts of "to add" ( is a translator that shows the Latin and Hebrew writing forms)-- "yasaf" is the phonetic pronunciation for adding something to things already gathered.   We don't need to rest with a book that may have been the best of its kind up to the 19th century, but has been superseded now. Mandsford 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, i don't think this was ever a reliable source. It's odd in a way that the author invented names in a period when so many literate people knew the Bible thoroughly.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesnt appear to be a reliable source. I dont find it odd, people with a religious passion often make stuff up, based on internal prompting, ie "god spoke to me" or "god told me exactly what this means". this may be the case with this book. and mandsford, thanks for the insightful comments. just to be clear, i was not responding directly to your previous comment above, just to the thread in general. Thanks for demonstrating more skillfully the high quality which this article would have to attempt to be kept.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare List of minor Biblical figures, which is attempting much the same coverage, at least with respect to names of persons. It is far from perfect in presentation, and very far from complete, but at least it tries to demonstrate the inclusion of these names in the Bible itself, and provides references for additional information where that is offered. bd2412  T 02:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This article needs references. That is not a reason to delete it. After references are found the article will be fine. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Wikisource per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTLINK. The entire content of this list is a copy and paste from the Hitchcock dictionary, word for word, unchanged, from A to Z.  The primary purpose of Wikisource is articles like this one.  This article does not belong here.  The only way this article can be kept is if it is completely blanked and rewritten only with information that is sourced with a Bible verse, and with a published etymology of each name to verify the meanings of the names given.  If the result of this AfD is Keep or No Consensus, then I invite the nominator to contact me and I'll help challenge and delete any unsourced material.  Then, the people who want to keep this article can add material back when it becomes sourced.  After all, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material.    talk 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think we have a clear consensus for that much. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of minor Biblical figures, which is a far better list in terms of sources, and rename that page List of Biblical figures to include everyone. I find it incomprehensible that the names on this page don't have source verses. (Every name must have a source verse, or else it doesn't appear in the Bible, right?). As for the translations, we should be able to include as many translations as are out there, citing each source. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This list can not be merged to List of minor Biblical figures because it is not a list of names of people, but (purportedly) of names of anything for which a name was given in the Bible. This includes names of towns or villages, geographic features, tribes, holy days, and songs. bd2412  T 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But did you notice that this page, List of Biblical names, is the redirect for List of Biblical figures?
 * Alternate to my merge idea is to source this current article completely. Every single name has to have a source-verse and every definition a source-reference. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the redirect, but those are usually cleaned up along with an article deletion. I have also proposed sourcing every name and definition, but this notion has received resistance from an editor who contends that the status quo is fine (and reverted deletion of the unsourced definitions). bd2412  T 22:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironholds (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a mess, and most of the keep votes seem to come under WP:SEP. If we can find reliable definitions of these names, they can go in the individual articles, but WP:IINFO suggests that we don't need this list. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This page is essentially an exact copy of this website. Wouldn't this qualify the article for speedy deletion per G12?    talk 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the article is a direct copy of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary, which is most likely out of copyright since it was written in the 1800's. Surely there is a WP policy that says that articles should not consist entirely of exact copies of another publication, whether it is copyrighted or not?    talk 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, we gladly incorporate material from out-of-copyright encyclopedias to the extent that it the information is accurate and reliable. The problem here is that there are serious concerns about the accuracy of the material. Even the primary defender of this article contends above that it could take up to seven years to fix, at a reasonable rate of repair. bd2412  T 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that we incorporate material from out-of-copyright encyclopedias, but is it common practice to have an article whose entire content is a complete copy of a single source?   talk 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't take seven years if we each take a section and find sources for the content. Just a suggestion. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the definitions should be removed unless and until they can be sourced? bd2412  T 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Amplifying on Alpha Quadrant's idea, many of the sources are already there at the beginning of each letter of the Bible Study Tools Library. Just click first on the associated letter Bible Study Tools Library reference provided and then on the word interested in and then the links provided for the additional sources. Other sources from Christian Classics Ethereal Library of Calvin College are also provided for each word under their infobox Other Dictionaries. It wouldn't be necessary to remove the definitions because SmackBot has provided Date maintenance tags. There has to be some time provided to do the task that the nominator is requesting.--LordGorval (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile if User:BD2412 would be so kind to delink all "yellow" Javascript that would solve two problems: 1) incorrect disambiguation pages and 2) too many links to the page.--LordGorval (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LordGorval, you've had since August 8, 2002 to add the sources. I think that's long enough.  If we delete the unsourced material, then you can have all the time in the world to restore them one by one as you find sources and bible verses to substantiate them.  There is no WP policy that says unsourced, potentially inaccurate material can't be deleted for a certain amount of time.  And the yellow links are only the tip of the iceberg with the link problem.  Those are only the links that happen to go to disambig pages.  The remainder of the links are still inaccurate (e.g. Boson links to the article about the subatomic particle, not the biblical character whose name means "taking away", but the link is not yellow).  In order to fix the link problem, we'd have to unlink every item and start over from scratch.    talk 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would make more since to wait for the outcome - as is recommended by the Help Desk. It could potentially save you a lot of work. What is it that you are afraid of that you are in such a hurry to delete material? Are you afraid that readers and editors will see the references and sources I have provided and that they match the terms of Hitchcock's public domain source? A few more days won't make any difference. Besides there are others that would like to help with the additional sources and as long as they are there with the references provided already (Bible Study Tools Library and Christian Classics Ethereal Library), they have all the additional sources necessary to go to, since the references are already there. They already have maintenance tags on them. There is nothing damaging in the terms. It won't hurt Wikipedia nor the readers of the article.--LordGorval (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is going to delete the majority of the article in the middle of an AfD, as that would be unnecessarily disruptive to the process. We're just anticipating a "No Consensus" result and planning for the future of the article after that happens.  And, the Hitchcock reference is all well and good, but it can't be solely relied on because it's already been proven to be inconsistent and inaccurate in some cases.  Marrying the Hitchcock source with the Bible verse in which the term appears would be a good way to cross-reference this unreliable source. Until we do something along those lines, all of these list entries are suspect.  And just tagging them with "citation needed" doesn't solve the problem, especially since we've exceeded the number of legal "citation needed" tags you can have on one page (if you scroll down the page you'll see that they turn into regular links at a certain point).     talk 16:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One can do all the "Marrying" they want IF they look at the References I have already provided for each letter (Bible Study Tools Library and Christian Classics Ethereal Library). They are not suspect to those that look at these References - ONLY to those that have not looked intentually. Hitchcock is NOT the sole Reference. It happens to be one, however it is backed up at each letter at the top with Bible Study Tools Library that has a table that shows the symbol and its corresponding resource:
 * [B] - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
 * [E] - Easton's Bible Dictionary
 * [H] - Hitchcock's Bible Names
 * [N] - Nave's Topical Bible
 * [S] - Smith's Bible Dictionary
 * [T] - Torrey's New Topical Textbook

Can you point out at which letter the "citation needed" stops. I see it going through the letter "Z". I think somewhere along the line we recently lost the template at each letter of "AlphanumericTOC|numbers=|top=|)}}". Can you fix? I have only known about the article since this month.--LordGorval (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Hitchcock really is the sole reference of this article, seeing as how this article is a complete copy/paste of the entire Hitchcock source, letter for letter, from start to finish. Since we've already seen proof above that Hitchcock's dictionary is inconsistent and inaccurate at times, it's not an unreasonable request to provide the Bible verse in which each name appears, if only to confirm that the name actually appears in the Bible.  And, the list should be standardized on one translation of the Bible, to reduce confusion about alternate spellings of names.  Regarding the "citation needed" problem, it happens right after Joshah.  You'll notice the font changes and the link changes from Citation needed to just Citation needed.  Also, your  templates do not display correctly after the J's.  This is because you're over the limit of 500 parser functions on a page, a symptom of a page which is far too large and bloated with unnecessary and non-notable information.  Seriously, a list of every proper noun in a book is a little ridiculous.  Perhaps we should start work on List of proper nouns in War & Peace after this.    talk 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, it's not acceptable to just list a bunch of Bible dictionaries at the top of the page, and claim that the article is properly sourced, especially since we're likely to find conflicting data in each of these sources.   talk 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a copy of Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary as you say, and it was obtained from Christian Classics Ethereal Library (which has been viewed over 3 million times). Calvin College believes it to be consistent and accurate, as I do. It has not been proven otherwise. It may have been debated otherwise, but not proven otherwise. For example take the first name of Aaron: a teacher; lofty; mountain of strength. C.C.E.L.'s Other Dictionaries points out Easton's Bible Dictionary, Nave's Topical Bible, Smith's Bible Dictionary, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1: Aachen-Assize, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge [Dictionary edition] and The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I: Aachen - Basilians as additional sources and information. Easton's Bible Dictionary shows mountain of strength, illuminator and Smith's Bible Dictionary - a teacher, or lofty.

Of as May 19 the "compactTOC7body" was working correctly, before all the "citation needed" tags were added. Everything was working properly BEFORE all these "citation needed" tags were added. It was easy to navigate then. Now nearly impossible to navigate. Yes, "Wikipedia:Citation needed" or just "Citation needed" - in any case they were all added for disruption, not that the citations were ever really needed or wanted as User:BD2412 claims he has not withdrawn his deletion nomination. His actions however say something different as he has added all these "citation needed" tags on all 2500 words. Looks like disruption to me as why else would he add all these "citation needed" tags IF the article was to be deleted in a few days anyway. He cann't speak with a forked tongue where he expects the article to be deleted in a few days, HOWEVER then follows up with all these "citation needed" tags for 2500 words. In order to get this task done it will take some time, therefore the ONLY conclusion I can come to is that he has withdrawn his deletion nomination - UNLESS he did this for disruptive purposes. Which is it?--LordGorval (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that db2412 gave several examples of names that appeared in this list which do not appear in the Bible. That is the reason we are saying that the Hitchcock source has been shown to be inaccurate, inconsistent, and/or based on an uncommon translation of the bible.
 * LordGorval: have you ever taken part in an AfD before, or is this your first one? It is not uncommon for the AfD nominator to modify the article during an AfD.  Such modifications are not normally interpreted as the nominator withdrawing his nomination.  If he was withdrawing his nomination, he would have plainly said so.  I can't even begin to understand the logic going on in your head that is bringing you to this conclusion.  Take my word for it: the nomination has not been withdrawn.  Just drop the idea and move on.  Your comments are far more disruptive than the "citation needed" tags, which are completely valid in this case.    talk 19:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your reponse. I've given up on responding to his ruminations. Obviously, I added tags for citations to each line in the article because citations are needed for each line in the article. The AfD had several days left to run when I added them, and even in that time we should not let readers be lulled into thinking that this article has been vetted and found reliable. In reviewing the list, it is impossible to even know if the definitions offered are meant to be the modern meanings, or the meanings said to have existed at the time those names were written in the Bible. I also removed "Christian" from the list, which also does not appear in the Bible (for obvious reasons), and I have to wonder whether there are other post-Biblical religious constructions on the list as well. bd2412  T 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The logic is: Actions speak louder than words.

It is not just a bunch of Dictionaries at the top of the page as you say. It is specific Bible Dictionaries that pertain to EXACTLY those words that start with those letters. It is specific definition sources for specific words that back up the Hitchcock word definitions. Could these very detailed definitions and information pieces be interpreted in different ways? I imagine so, especially since they are religious terms. Could any other sources that you could come up with for a particular Biblical Name have conflicting data? Most certainly. No difference, these sources or other sources. The idea of sources that are references at the top of a table are very much like what you will find in many Featured Lists - as I have already explained above.--LordGorval (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As for certain words on the list like "Christian" - it was added later and not in the Hitchcock list. I had / have no control of people adding names. It just means that after this addition of a name not originally in the Hitchcock list, THAT THEN the Wikipedia list is inaccurate - not the complete Hitchcock list. HOWEVER the word "Christ" is on the list. Its definition is given as "anointed." The definition of "anointed", according to Random House Dictionary, is "to choose formally, anointed a successor." The word "anointed" can be attributed to Chaucer in his poem Boece according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps a "Christian" could be said to be one that has been chosen formally for an important position. And I said I wasn't going to let you in on the secrets. That's it though, no more.--LordGorval (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:BD2412’s actions speak louder than his words.

On May 17 he started the article deletion process. Through May 18 most votes were for Keep and I had answered most of his objections. Starting on May 19 he went on a tag bombing campaign to sway the debate more towards a "Deletion" result. He ultimately "citation needed" tagged all 2500 words. Being a Senior Editor III with over 200,000 edits he knew this was not the right thing to do. He claims in his words he knew the process would take a few more days to finalize and the reason he gives is "…even in that time we should not let readers be lulled into thinking that this article has been vetted and found reliable", even though the article has been around since 2002. Obviously, due to the timing of the tag bombing campaign, it was done to disrupt the process to sway the tide of the outcome in his favor. There is no way anyone could come up with multiple book, chapter and verse bible references as he wants for 2500 words in just a few days. That’s an impossible task. However I gave him benefit of the doubt and chose an alternate answer for the tag bombing campaign - that he really DID want multiple book, chapter and verse bible references for 2500 words. This would take considerable time, probably in the order of years. So therefore choosing the one of the reasons why the tag bombing campaign, I choose the reason then as him withdrawing from the deletion nomination. His words say he wanted to protect the readers all of a sudden in the last few days, however due to the timing of the tag bombing campaign, his actions say he wanted to disrupt the Afd process to sway it in his favor as at that point they were in favor of Keeping the article. As a Senior Editor does he actually think someone could come up with multiple book, chapter and verse bible references for 2500 words in just a few days? If he truly does, then something is wrong with the 200,000 edit count he claims to have. I can only conclude that the nominator has withdrawn from the deletion nomination. His actions speak louder than his words.--LordGorval (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares? What are you even babbling about?  Guess what, I can bold things too:  The nominator has not withdrawn his deletion nomination because he has never said so, and has in fact clearly denied this accusation all of the 19 times you've inexplicably brought it up for the sole purpose of disrupting this AfD.  Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself, and allow others to do the same.     talk 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot for ya'alls input. I have learned much during this debate - way more than you can even imagine. Its a win-win situation.--LordGorval (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a game at all, it is merely an effort to limit the content of the encyclopedia to that which is encyclopedic by requiring that claims asserted as facts be reliably sourced. Why not merely show that these definitions can be sourced by providing sources unrelated to Hitchcock for a few of these definitions? bd2412  T 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I assume then I am not banned from editing Bible-related articles. I just now gave some references to Christ. I did in fact find references to Christian. Type Agrippa in the Search box. Would this be a good start. Can I assume you have withdrawn your nomination for deletion to the article? If you have, then who knows what secrets may develop. Otherwise, as you know, the Hitchcock words can easily be found on the internet most anywhere. It would be your loss and my gain. It looks like SnottyWong has already come unglued. It was predictable as I had mentioned way before.--LordGorval (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take that back. I have no power to ban anyone from anything individually, and certainly did not mean to suggest that you were. However, I'd suggest you cite something other than "Christ", which is indisputably well-documented. There are literally thousands of names on the list without such a level of documentation. How about something like Nibhaz, or Delaiah, or Zareah? bd2412  T 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. Keep in mind I would not be considered a "religious person" (whatever that is) so the way I look at these items is not from a religious viewpoint. I go from the viewpoint of the definitions and discover new things. Before we leave Christ, perhaps take special note that the spelling "Christ" is attested from the 14th century. The word "anointed" is attributed to Chaucer, who died in 1400. I believe "Christian" could be said to be one that has been chosen formally for an important position - not as the religion of Christianity preaches it. Now let's go to Agrippa, who could easily be considered a "king" and definitely was considered "hero-like" - definitions in Nave's Topical Bible and Smith's Bible Dictionary. Hitchcock defines it as "one who causes great pain at his birth", which I see as "one who causes great pain at his rise in power". Agrippa was Octavian's defense minister - a very important position to which he had been formally chosen for. Just some ideas, and not the least "religious." So did I get a "YES" that you have withdrawn your deletion nomination and would you be willing to take away the 2500 "citation needed" tags as it makes it extremely difficult to navigate to make references.--LordGorval (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not withdrawing it, although I would not worry much if I were you as I doubt a closing admin will read the votes as showing a consensus to delete. This may change with further votes, but in my experience they tend to follow the pattern of earlier votes. Do you see the problem, though? You searched for a definition for Agrippa and found one different from Hitchcock's. You may be able to come up with an interpretation that reconciles these definitions, but that interpretation would be considered original research, so yet another source would be required to support your interpretation. Which is why every definition in this list should be (and should have been) removed pending provision of a reference. bd2412  T 20:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not worried. I go along with your consensus. Yes, will have to agree with you that it might be considered original research.--LordGorval (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, Acts 26:28 I see as: Then Agrippa said to Augustus (the first emperor of the Roman Empire), "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a defense minister?" Paul is defined as small or little. In this case it is the smallest in number (# 1) of the Roman Emperors. I'm sure also this would be considered original research.--LordGorval (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. If it's a likely interpretation, someone with authority on the subject will have written about it, and the task at hand is to find that source. bd2412  T 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Never thought of that. Thanks.--LordGorval (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC) One of my tasks then is to actually find an authenticated verifiable New Testament copy PRIOR to the 14th century. Haven't been able to find one in 10 years of looking.--LordGorval (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm pretty sure "y'alls" is not actually a word.    talk 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yu-ins come up with the best stuff!--LordGorval (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say "y'alls" meets the criteria for inclusion of Wiktionary. bd2412  T 23:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then just "mesh" the keys next to the left hand "error."--LordGorval (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and split This article needs improvement but using the rationale that it should be deleted because it is on a public domain website doesn't really mean it should be deleted. Having this list in conjunction with the other list is good because it can be expanded while the other list will likely remain stagnent. This page is also way too long and should be split up so that navigation is easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The information is available from a public domain source, which was listed at the top of the article before someone went through and put citation needed tags next to every single entry. You don't need a link for every single entry, when it says at the top where it all comes from.  Note, Wikipedia started out with the public domain encyclopedias and other books incorporated to it.  There is nothing wrong with doing that.   D r e a m Focus  20:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikisource because this list goes way beyond the scope of any normal "article" or lists which should be in moderation. This would seem to violate WP:NOTCATALOG #2, that Wikipedia articles are not: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety...Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles...See Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project." And #7 "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight." As well as violating WP:NOT. This is like trying to list every one of the over 600,000 letters in the Torah scroll (all holy, full of meaning and important, but each one does not deserve to be listed in a Wikipedia "list" or article). Not advisable. IZAK (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. This is a primary source and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I thought when I looked at the article I would see a list of personal names, but this is an indiscrminate list of all proper names in the Bible; cities, tribes, rivers and people. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of hand-waving and suggestions that sources exist and someone will add them sometime. Not convincing. Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LordGorval, who had been the primary proponent of this article, tried adding new sources. He quickly discovered that these sources contradicted the original source, and changed his vote to delete. At this point, I'd propose the following steps. First, revert the article back to its original state and transwiki it to Wikisource, as has been proposed in several comments above. Second, move it to project space so we can use it as an index to determine which items on the list actually represent missing articles. We can then work through it at our leisure, deleting the ones we have (or make), and the ones with no prospect of becoming articles. When all the links are done, the project itself can be deleted. bd2412  T 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that.--LordGorval (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a valid list. The names themselves can easily be sourced, albeit to a Bible, a primary source. The translations should be removed pending valid sourcing. -- Pink Bull  20:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are many variations on a single biblical name.RussianReversal (talk) 00:04, 26 May 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.