Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:9


 * 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 of the debate was redirect. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 1:9
Redirect to Gospel of Matthew Matthew 1. Note that this was discussed at Centralized_discussion/200_verses_of_Matthew (along with many, many other times in general such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, Category_talk:Bible_verses, Votes_for_deletion/Individual_Bible_verses, Merge/Bible_verses, Bible_verses, Votes_for_deletion/John_20, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/John_20:16, Votes_for_deletion/Matthew_1, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Matthew_2:16, Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Verses_of_John_20, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Genesis_1:1, and I'm sure I missed some...). Jaranda tried to implement this but was reverted by SimonP so I bring this here to see if there is consensus for this action. Note that this is only about this 'specific' verse at this time, and not in general.

kotepho 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources
 * The splitting into verses is rather arbitrary.
 * Discussion of the content is better done by book or by section, not verse.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not the place for annotations of books we do have WikiBooks and WikiSource.
 * This verse is not notable enough to stand on its own.
 * Delete single verses are almost never indpendently notable, and the structure of verses is in any case a Mediaeval construct not part of the orogonal text. But do be aware that there is an Arbcom case on this at present. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? I cannot seem to find anything at RFC, ArbCom, etc.  kotepho 21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not fit Deletion Policy. Rich  Farmbrough 21:51 12  March 2006 (UTC).


 * Comment Centralized_discussion/Conclusions. Unless it can prove outstanding notability on its own, an article about a single Bible verse should be merged and redirected to its parent chapter article. and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_1:2_%28second_attempt%29 kotepho 22:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed that fits with Deletion Policy suggestion - merge/redirect. Not delete. No AfD is required for that. Rich  Farmbrough 22:19 12  March 2006 (UTC).
 * That was done before by Jaranda as I noted in the proposal and it was reverted with the reasoning that it has survived VFD before. Thus, I brought it here.  The redirect is close to de facto deletion as the commentary is already covered in other places such as Genealogy of Jesus so there really isn't anywhere to merge to. kotepho 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Matthew 1 per Centralized_discussion/Conclusions. --Metropolitan90 02:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matthew 1 --Jaranda wat's sup 03:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matthew 1. --Ter e nce Ong 05:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matthew 1 --Khoikhoi 08:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect (and if necessary protect page to prevent recreation). --kingboyk 08:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That won't work, it's SimonP who is creating and re-creating these articles, and he's not only a sysop but an Arbitrator. See Requests for arbitration/KJV which is actually quite surreal, being User:-Ril-, a long-time problem editor, taking on an arbitrator at Arbcom and with some evidence that Arbcom supports the case. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Thanks for the headsup. Surreal indeed. --kingboyk 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Article has been expanded, please review. Rich  Farmbrough 14:25 19  March 2006 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Matthew 1] per nom. A small number of notable and oft-quoted/mentioned Bible verses deserve pages, but this one is definitely not one of them. -- Mithent 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matthew 1, and protect, for what it's worth. Stifle 01:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While I am all for your expansion, wouldn't this be better discussed as whole (such as Genealogy of Jesus) rather than splitting it between Matthew 1:2 - Matthew 1:16? —kotepho 2006-03-19 17:09Z 
 * Quite possibly. I think that the Bible is more complex as a scholarly entity than any of us (most of us) give it credit.  In htis case I think there should be some real thought into how the information is organised, in general it seems there is scope for Bible chapter articles, which my be very short mainly pointing to passage commentaries, which would probably be sub-sections of articles in many cases.  E.G. Genealogy of Jesus#Matthean lineage  In that case verse articles would be redirects.  But we also have to think about usability, from the POV of a user who is given a verse reference.  The user should see at least one text and some simple explanation with as few "clicks" as possible, and have more detailed analysis and context available easily. What's the best way to achieve this? Rich   Farmbrough 16:48 20  March 2006 (UTC).
 * I think we should have articles on topics (such as Genealogy of Jesus) and articles on chapters/books. If you need to link to the text you can link to wikisource/books where one can have plenty of translations and annotation.  to the nth degree (effectively 1 click away).  The usability can only go so far though, what version of 1 Kings 5:1 do you make? If it is a link from an article it could just as easily link to wiki(source|books) and the appropriate one.  Should we turn the verse articles into disambig pages instead?  Have a links to where the content is discussed as well as links to the verses themselves in wiki(source|books). —kotepho 2006-03-20 17:08Z 


 * I'm fine with keeping this at the moment, although I think it might perhaps be reorganised into a larger chunk at some point. I just don't see why some people are so vehemently against minor biblical topics, when Wikipedia is full of articles on minor topics with far less historical importance or cultural influence (all the pokemonistics, sports data etc.). Please don't confuse a detailed coverage of religious topics with religious bias. Any sufficiently complete treatment of the Bible, incorporating contemporary historical-critical biblical scholarship, is far more likely to be distasteful to the Jason Gastriches of the world than to secular or at least non-fundamentalist people. u p p l a n d 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually welcome the information I just think it is presented and organized an unhelpful way that is prone to POV and commentary on minutiae. —kotepho 2006-03-20 17:14Z 


 * Keep or if overwhelming consensus to the contrary, Merge to Matthew 1. I personally consider this article meaty enough to stand on its own, and since Wikipedia is not paper there should be no qualms about including it. I agree with the eloquent sentiments of u p p l a n d, and would naturally prefer the article to stay. Brisvegas 09:43, 22 March 2006 (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.