Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 2:21
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
n.n. Bible cruft. Content is
- 1 sentence overview of previous chapters
- a pretty picture that isn't specifically tied to this verse
- 2 translations of the verse,
- A statement that the verse is almost an exact copy of the previous one - Matthew 2:20, which, b.t.w. also has an article (Matthew 2:20), though if they are so similar I really don't see why they deserve an article each
The verse is "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel". I really don't see how this constitutes notability.
- Delete --User talk:FDuffy 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and I just discovered that articles have been created of many individual verses from Matthew (and perhaps other books of the Bible?) I think that only whole books and significant Bible topics should be treated in separate articles. For example, this article could be merged into Birth and Childhood of Jesus or something like that. Logophile 14:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this is part of a large ongoing project, there have so far been seven separate VfDs on this issue, six ended as keep and one that ended with no consensus:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16, and future Bible verses
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20 and all linked verses
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16 also applied to Matthew 2:1-15
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genesis 1:1
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1 and all similar articles
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses
- There have also been two lengthy centralized discussions, one at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and one at Wikipedia:Bible verses. Rather than VfDing individual verses in isolation, any discussion should be brought to those pages. - SimonP 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a red herring. Those votes ended without consensus. They discussed too many articles at once. You appear to be the creator of those articles, so I can see why you think they should stay. Can you justify why this particular article constitutes a noteworthy encyclopedic entry? --User talk:FDuffy 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- We don't delete stubs, especially when they can be expanded. A vast, and almost incomprehensible, amount of scholarly material has been written on the Bible. For the 7,957 verses of the New Testament alone there are some 1500 journal articles and 700 books of Biblical criticism written each year. In various forms Biblical criticism has been going on for almost 2000 years. I only used about a dozen sources in my work, as other readers consult other works much more will be added to each article. - SimonP 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how, if, as the article states, Matthew 2:21 is almost identical to Matthew 2:20, they deserve seperate articles, when they are clearly connected and say almost the same thing? --User talk:FDuffy 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds more like an argument for merging than deletin. I do now merge some pairs that are very closely linked, such as Matthew 5:23-4, and perhaps this one would be better with that format. - SimonP 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how, if, as the article states, Matthew 2:21 is almost identical to Matthew 2:20, they deserve seperate articles, when they are clearly connected and say almost the same thing? --User talk:FDuffy 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- We don't delete stubs, especially when they can be expanded. A vast, and almost incomprehensible, amount of scholarly material has been written on the Bible. For the 7,957 verses of the New Testament alone there are some 1500 journal articles and 700 books of Biblical criticism written each year. In various forms Biblical criticism has been going on for almost 2000 years. I only used about a dozen sources in my work, as other readers consult other works much more will be added to each article. - SimonP 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a red herring. Those votes ended without consensus. They discussed too many articles at once. You appear to be the creator of those articles, so I can see why you think they should stay. Can you justify why this particular article constitutes a noteworthy encyclopedic entry? --User talk:FDuffy 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep unless a policy-level decisoion is made to remove all articles which relate to a single verse or paragraph of any religious text. Equalhandedness.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. --MisterHand 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now, but consider a merge later. Tupsharru 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this one, based on the fact that it has some (little) content, beside the text, and even two references that could be used for expansion. - Liberatore(T) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Bible available on wikisource. I disagree w SockpuppetSamuelson, each verse should be considered on its merits. If it is the subject of controversy, or has been used to support some political position, or if there's much to say about it's impact on culture, then an article is worthwhile. eg see Psalm_23. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Contra Liberatore's comment, the problem with this scheme from SimonP is that it is not focused onto the important biblical verses at all. There is insufficient notabliity about this material to merit any sort of merging. JGF Wilks 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- focusing on verses in isolation is meaningless and fallacious. Haikupoet 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Squiddy. Humansdorpie 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This verse is an almost exact copy of the last one, expect it is in the past tense. so maybe they could be merged into a single article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Part of a valid project. Honbicot 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep we have had this debate already -Doc ask? 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Re Part of a valid project from Honbicot and we have had this debate already Doc could you expand and give links please? If this is an already-agreed policy decision then we should just live with it, whatever our individual views are - that wasn't my understanding though, so I'd appreciate being brought up to speed on this. Dlyons493 Talk 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have elabourated. User:-Ril- crusaded against Bible verses for months - all were kept, finally, he launched a poll see Wikipedia:Bible verses, which colcluded with a consenus that 'notable Bible verses' deserve articles. So unless someone want to argue that this one is 'not notable' - and I'd be willing to have that debate. --Doc ask? 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for exactly the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:5 Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or weak merge to Matthew 2:20, concentrate in important religious verses? feydey 23:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Just zis Guy, you know? - No Guru 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Doc. This is similar to WikiProject/missing encyclopedic articles/eastons, which is including all topics from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897), while the text of EBD is being included in Wikisource (project not completed). As to verse 20 vs verse 21, the last paragraph of the article provides the distinction between the previous verse and 2:21 and its significance. —ERcheck @ 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)