Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:2 (second attempt)

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 merge and redirect as per Ruud. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 1:2

This is a single verse in the bible. Wikipedia does not need individual articles on every verse in the bible. We should have articles on interesting or controversial ones, but this isn't an interesting one. The verse simply says:

Abraham became the father of Isaac.

Isaac became the father of Jacob.

Jacob became the father of Judah

and his brothers.

..This article says nothing more than this verse and the verses near it in the bible do. It was VFD'd by -Ril- before, but kept. I feel that part of this is because it was put in a lump vfd with a ton of other verse articles. That type of listing does not tend to produce good results. So, basically, I'd like to delete this because it's not interesting or important enough for an encyclopedia. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By my count Bible verse articles have been VfDed 14 times in the past, and every one has been kept. Just last week several other short articles, such as Matthew 2:21, were kept. We do not delete articles just becuase they are stubs. - SimonP 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But still there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, not including ones that have been "dropped" or the apocrypha. The verse still has to have some notability (like maybe John 3:16)--Esprit15d 19:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Sounds like it does has relevance to the Abraham article, or the Abrahamic religions article, so I would merge it there. But if it is redundant information, just delete.--Esprit15d 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entirely useful and encyclopedic. — Dan | talk 19:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion on Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses should shed some light on the topic.--Esprit15d 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, merge to Genealogy of Jesus. Uncle G 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere and redirect to Matthew 1. —Ruud 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Ruud Grimm 20:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Ruud --NaconKantari 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable and NPOV info, why delete? As a secnd choice, merge toGenealogy of Jesus.--Doc ^ask? 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is much harder to monitor 30 000 pages for vandalism or POV pushing than 100, this article will most likely never become a featured article, while Matthew 1 will, because you have no defence when someone wants to include another translation, and another, and another, ..., it tells you Abraham is the father of Isaac is the father Jacob is the father Judah and his brothers in at least three different ways, the picture is very pretty but takes up an unproportianlly large amount of space compared to its relevance, Matthew 1 could really use some more content, you can always unmerge it if it turns out that Matthew 1 is getting too large, ... —Ruud 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has more content than the nominator allows. There is no reason why we can't have 30,000 articles about the Bible. We must have getting on for that many about American pop music of the last 50 years, and the Bible is rather more important. Choalbaton 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, usually we do not have articles for every song. There's simply not much you could write about them. Or the thousands of normal bible verses. Some people would argue that the bible isn't more important, but I certainly wont. (besides the fact i'm christian, it's a very notable and interesting historical book) :D Additionalyl, there are no articles for every 3 sentences of any other book. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Choalbaton. Tvaughn05 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ruud. These verses can be covered in detail on the Matthew 1 page. Kerowyn 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Ruud. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dsmdgold 01:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ViolinGirl^♪ 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — As long as it presents some neutral analysis and is not just a recitation, I don't see a problem. Of course the same logic will have to apply to the core works of the other notable religions as well. So it may make sense to perform some type of consolidation. :) — RJH 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just like the last thirteen times. We have articles for one-line jokes in The Simpsons and pets in Harry Potter. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And i'd like to delete some of those too. And the per-pokemon articles, other than a few extra notable ones. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic information is presented by the article, and a merge is unfeasible. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single verse of the Bible is usually not notable, although it is important. It also makes less sense when it stands alone than when it appears in context. Each verse will have to be explained in light of the preceding verse and the following verse; therefore, it makes sense to write articles about notable Bible passages and Bible topics rather than individual verses. Wikipedia may be able to contain a lot, but every verse of the Bible and then--to maintain NPOV--every verse of the Koran, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the plays of Shakespeare, the sayings of Confucius, etc? That's acutally what Wikisource is for. Logophile 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Matthew 1 --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.