Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin and Growth of the English Bible


 * 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.  Sango  123   20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin and Growth of the English Bible
Not an article. Ryan Delaney talk 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete This asci mess needs to be removed pronto.  There is nothing here and no prospect of it being turned into a legitimate article.  There are plenty of Bible related pages, this one is less than useful. Ande B 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as per Ande B --Bill (who is cool!) 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to English translations of the Bible. Some editors apparently believe it to be useful. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not immediately... maybe someone can make use of this and convert it into a graphic under GFDL? ~Kylu ( u | t )  06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I like the Bible, but this article is junk. &rarr; Wombdpsw - @ &larr; 07:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with English translations of the Bible or Bible. It might help to turn this into writing first, though.
 * Merge with English translations of the Bible, preferably in the form of graphics. Useful material in that context, but not suitable as a standalone article. -- On second thought, if it's to be turned into graphics, how are we technically going to preserve the useful links within the graph? Any ideas on how to solve that? They are eminently useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete But stick the ascii onto a talk page somewhere. --Clawed 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Ande B Crazynas 12:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Ande B Crazynas 12:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Excuse me, but exactly which criterion for speedy deletion do you think this page falls under? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Question. Is this original research? I see no references. --Lambiam Talk 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Valid point, but there seems to be quite a bit of documentation in the linked articles on the individual versions, including what translations were based on which others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge - A non-ASCII version of this should be used as an illustration in a real article, not as a separate one. -- Hirudo 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete SM247 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ter e nce Ong 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a repository for ASCII art. Maybe merge the information into Bible. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I learned something new today - there's a category called "Articles with ASCII art"? Anyway, take a look at the graph ... it doesn't seem to be entirely accurate.  For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are just as ancient as the other ancient copies - we just didn't have them available until recently.  Also, I'm not entirely certain that the NKJV and NASB really belong in the same column as ASV/RSV/NRSV.  NKJV and NASB are really a separte fork.  At any rate, an ASCII art map of Bible history probably isn't that helpful. BigDT 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is of dubious quality as BigDT points out. If someone wants to make this into a graphic, I suspect it would be better to start from scratch. Grand  master  ka  01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - also, according to our own article on The Living Bible, it is a paraphrase based on the ASV. (I'll take our word for it - I know nothing about TLB.)  So it should be with the ASV, not out with The Bible formerly known as TEV, NIV, and NLT ... not that NLT, NIV, and GNT/TEV are in any way, shape, or form related to each other to begin with. BigDT 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Omigod, I'm back on Usenet in the early 1990s again! Bad ASCII art, not an article at all.  KleenupKrew 23:35, 2 June 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.