Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 24:34


 * 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Matthew 24:34
Delete. This article consists of one single quoted Bible verse, with no discussion of the verse at all, no assertion of notability. We don't need to have a Wikipedia article for each Bible verse unless there is something particularly notable about it. &spades;DanMS 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What greater claim to 'notability' could you want than it being the Word of God?! Trollderella 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I was talking about in my vote. If we allow this sort of reasoning we might just as well rename this encyclopedia to "Christipedia" and forbid articles about atheism or non-Christian religions. &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -Andrew 04:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Truly I say unto you, Delete this article as per nom. Ifnord 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think there is substantial commentary on this verse... but, as of now the article has nothing. I think it could maybe have potential, although I think it needs more context (Matthew 24) than "turn the other cheek" type verses. gren グレン 05:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The bible is already on Wikibooks. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The various translations of the Bible are on Wikisource, not Wikibooks. Uncle G 11:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The bible (King James Version) is indeed available on Wikibooks here. freshgavin  ΓΛĿЌ  02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. per above. -- WB 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is it with people creating articles about individual Bible verses? Do they feel it is their holy obligation as decent, God-fearing Christians? I hope I don't come off as a godless freedom-hating communist bastard, but I think that while the Bible is notable, individual parts of its contents aren't. &mdash; J I P | Talk 08:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Calm down. There are even more here: Matthew 4. Anyway, calm down. -- WB 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, we have gotten to the point where we're creating every album by any semi-notable artist. While interest may not be with religious books these days, over time there has been tons of exegeses about every single Bible verse (Qur'an too for that matter) and by people more notable (Aquinas, Augustine, Lewis, Maududi, Qutb) than all but a select few recording artists.  I'm not advocating creating every verse of course, but I do think in perspective this is no less sane than creating albums when you have nothing more than an album box and a track listing. gren グレン 12:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment: The articles on the verses in Matthew 4 are rather nice, because they not only quote the verse, but also explain its significance in various aspects and what people feel about it. This verse article, though, is nothing but a verbatim cite of the verse. Keeping it without expanding would set a precedent that everything in the Bible is automatically notable, regardless of whether anyone cares about it any more than anything other in the Bible, or of whether anyone actually has anything to say about it. It would feel like a pro-Christian bias to me. &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I have no issue with recreating if exegesis is added. I expect we'd have copyright issues if we started keeping every verse (I think the common rule is no more than half of any particular book).  &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could see a point if it treated a certain controversial topic, possibly, although it would better serve as support under in that topic's article. As it stands, the article does nothing. ElAmericano 14:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was considering suggesting making Bible verses into redirects to Bible, but then I realized that would be extreme overkill. On the other hand, we may eventually have to protect these, as there have been many. I don't suggest a blanket protection of the creation of all Bible verse articles (if that were possible, and it's probably not), however, because there are some particularily "notorious" Bible verses that people could write about. (And I bet there are some good ones out there. Perhaps someone could comment and show me one.) I am trying to think of what a user wants when they enter that search term. I wonder if a suggestion on the top of Bible about where to find a copy of the Bible online would help? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * John 3:16... widely referenced (though not quoted) on christian apparel. etc. It even appears on In-N-Out Burger wrappers   Very conceivable that a person would wiki that term if they just saw "John 3:16" on their burger wrapper.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good point. I've turned it into a wikilink in the hopes of tempying someone to write it. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 23:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh neat! It exists already! --Jacquelyn Marie 23:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless we want a page for every Bible, Torah, Koran, Hadith etc quote Batmanand 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matthew 24 or to Gospel of Matthew. Trollderella 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless page.
 * On Wikipedia there really should not be
 * An article for everyone to see
 * When all it contains
 * are biblical strains
 * from one gospel but not the other three.
 * FearÉIREANN[[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint) 20:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect per Trollderella. No reason to have a page for every bible verse.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete religioncruft. MCB 21:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord, delete this verse, for it is but one verse unto a multitude, and providedth of no context, is but a waste of disk space. May it be smitten from thine Wikipedia, and the earth salted until thine servants produce an article instead of a quotation from thine holy fiction. In the name of our lord Jimbo, amen. Lord Bob 21:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You realize, of course, that your comment, which will be archived, now takes up more disk space than the article that you propose to delete, on the (incorrect) assumption that there is a shortage of disk space. Help. My head hurts.... Trollderella 18:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You realize, of course, that when somebody writes a deletion vote as a prayer, it's probably a joke. Also, that I said it was a waste of disk space, not that there is a shortage of disk space. There's a difference. Actually, this comment is also a waste of disk space, so I'm going to stop now. Lord Bob 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2 sv dsk spc wll b brff, jk fnny. c u l8r, Trollderella 18:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. by the way: there are articles on many, many verses from the new and old testament up here.  Is there some other wikiplace that they can all be sent?  Given all the different translations of the bible and the many online versions of the bible already on the internet, it seems that they just do not need to be here. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, let me know if it's expanded. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopeless orphaned excerpt. --Meiers Twins 18:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So when does it actually get deleted? Clearly, we're all in agreement. ElAmericano 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * AfD period is 5 days if I'm not mistaken... could be up to 7 days before an admin gets around to deleting it though... just depends.--Isotope23 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless significant context added. 70.27.59.200 20:19, 25 October 2005 (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.