Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 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 was   Delete, noting that the content has been userfied to User:Lemmiwinks2/Outline of the Bible. I am also going to take the liberty to redirect Timeline of the Bible to Chronology of the Bible, as was suggested below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is not only pure original research, from start to finish, but is also hopeless. There's simply no way to create a timeline of the Bible without it being original research. The very title begs the question of Bible version, translation, interpretation, etc. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to 'outline of the bible'. I am the author of the article. The article is an 'outline' of the bible arranged as much as possible according to its internal timeline and containing as many links as possible to articles where the material can be discussed in detail and therefore secondarily acts as a convenient list of links. It does not address the question of actual historical dating (or whether the persons or events even existed). As I said on the talk page, Its purpose is to answer the question of 'what does the bible say'. Nothing more and nothing less. (I made this clear from the very beginning. The first 2 words of the article are a link to the talk page explaining this). I deliberately chose to do this so as to avoid accusations of original research and because that is the logical place to start any intelligent discussion about the bible. To say that it treats fictional characters as real (WP:INUNIVERSE) is simply flabbergasting. It contains many links to pages that discuss real historical dates and events many of which are highly critical of the bible and I welcome any such input.  Every number in it was pulled straight from the bible. It is intended for those who are studying the bible and especially those studying its timeline.  Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been completely happy with the title of the article. Thats one of the first things that was discussed on the talk page. Six day ago I even suggested (there on the talk page) that the article should maybe be moved to 'outline of the bible'. I prefer to work mainly with the Masoretic version of the bible simply because that is the one I am most familiar with but I welcome any input about other versions. At several places I point out how the Septuagint differs. By the way, the article gets over 200 hits per day. http://stats.grok.se/en/201001/timeline of the bible. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The name change to "Outline" makes it even more POV. If it's purely a timeline, the article can be basically objective - if it's an outline, then a lot more interpretation is involved based on what one includes or does not include. You see, there can never be a fully comprehensive outline - the very word indicates that one is selecting the important features. Here's one random example of interpretation - the article includes Zerubbabel under "Kings", whereas the Hebrew Bible never calls him a king. StAnselm (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Zerubbabel is listed under the subsection 'post exile rulers'. The list comes from 1 Chronicles 3:17-24 which the NIV titles 'the royal line after the exile'. You want to delete the article because I put the subsection 'post exile rulers' under the section 'kings'? Yes technically they were just rulers not kings. If it makes you happy I will change the entire section 'Kings' to 'rulers'. (I've also changed the subsection to 'royal line after the exile'). This is just another of the endless examples of everyone on the internet assuming that everyone else has some sinister ulterior motive for everything that they do. I was just being practical. I didnt want to create another whole section and "rulers" didnt seem like a very good heading.  Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you have a "sinister ulterior motive", just that you have a particular slant, like everyone else. And that particular slant comes out in the article. It comes out in what you include and what you leave out. It comes out in how you organise the data. I picked the example of Zerubbabel, because how you handle the post-exilic period ties in with how you see the trajectory of the Hebrew Bible. StAnselm (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trajectory of the bible? I dont even know what you are talking about. I include everything. I leave out nothing. I just condense it to tables and charts as best I can. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't put something like this together without including your own interpretation, or choosing between sources. Look at the table of "Creation by Elohim", for example.  Why on earth do you divide things up the way you do?  (For that matter, why do you spell "shamayim" as "shamim"?)


 * The division of the Land of Israel by tribes is not without its own issues. You've chosen one interpretation and presented it as encyclopedic fact.  You list wives of Adam and his descendants.  But while those are the names found in the Book of Jubilee, not everyone accepts that book as a valid source.  For example, Jewish tradition holds that Noah was married to Naamah, the descendant of Cain.  And not "Emzara".  Why pick one source over another?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:PLOT, WP:OR, WP:INUNIVERSE. The article looks almost entirely... unencyclopedic. It contains numerous disjointed quotes from the Bible and no actual, factual chronology or reliable secondary sources to speak of. A seemingly unnecessary fork from Chronology of the Bible, Chronology of Jesus and other similar pages, I feel that it would have to be fundamentally rewritten to become suitable for an encyclopedia. — Rankiri (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chronology of the Bible, which treats the same subject without the original research. EALacey (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article looks like it's beyond salvaging. There's so much here that's not part of a timeline, and a whole lot of entries with time references such as "some time later". Maybe there's some info here that could be added to the Chronology of the Bible article. StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Some time later' is a direct quote from Genesis. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete At 259 KB, this is the longest article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it's mostly incoherent notes from the author to the author, with plenty of "?" thrown in. Someone's personal study of the Old Testament or Torah is fine for their own word processor, but not as an article on Wikipedia.  Give them time to save it on to their hard drive.  Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The longest was about 350 KB the last time I checked. The nature of the subject matter and the inclusion of tables and lists with many references justifies the length. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is very clearly original research, with inadequate citation of scholarship on the subject, and not sufficiently well-written. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to vanity-publish this. The article is also much too long, and there are existing articles for most sub-topics, such as individual books, Chronology of the Bible, and Gospel harmony.  The author should be encouraged to make better-written, properly referenced, non-original-research contributions to those. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but be sure to give article creator a chance to save per mandsford (PLEASE, lemmiwinks2, dont lose your work! save to your drive to avoid having to request the deleted page), pending him moving this to a bible wiki or a personal website (and be sure its not on his userpage). obviously a labor of love, and probably of interest to some amateur biblical scholars. this is not appropriate for WP. the bible is not considered a reliable source for its own precise, dated chronology, so any attempt to list events of the bible on a timeline from the beginning of the world is inherently POV and OR. nowhere in this article is it mentioned that this timeline would be considered meaningless by mainstream scholars. all the references appear to be of bible passages. i dont believe there are any precisely dated events in the old testament. enough said. im just sorry the editor made such valiant strides in a futile direction.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it? It seems to be a redirect to his userpage with no AfD template. I've just commented on other OR by this editor and tables that he is placing in numerous biblical articles. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's now at User:Lemmiwinks2/Outline of the Bible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't blank an article during an AfD, then surely this should be put back? Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the author of the article can blank the article, although the rest of us are admonished not to do so. In that event, it falls under WP:SPEEDY.  From what I understand, Lemmiwinks has made the decision (a wise one, I believe) to userfy this. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 25 January 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.