Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Keep'''. We've been through this already. There is no reason why all kinds of minor things in various utterly unimportant fantasy and SF universes with a strong following among geeks should have articles, while the most influential piece of literature in the Western world for the last 2000 years should not be treated in equal detail. Practically every chapter and verse of the Bible has been extensively commented, quoted, paraphrased, illustrated or alluded to in art, music and literature many times over. Wars and major religious splits have been caused by the interpretation of some verses. Even an individual chapter such as [[Matthew 1]] is certainly more important for Western culture and history than everything concerning [[Babylon 5]], [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]] and [[Dune]] put together; heck, I'll even throw in [[Tolkien]], [[Star Wars]] and [[Star Trek]], not to mention all the [[Pokemon]] garbage. Did [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] or [[George Frideric Handel|Handel]] write oratorios based on texts from Tolkien? Did [[Caravaggio]], [[Leonardo da Vinci|Leonardo]] or [[Peter Paul Rubens|Rubens]] produce paintings based on passages from Star Trek? These articles just have to be based in scholarly literature (which this clearly is) and continuously watched for NPOV to prevent fundamentalist Bible-thumpers from taking over. But that's no different from many other articles on controversial topics. [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. We've been through this already. There is no reason why all kinds of minor things in various utterly unimportant fantasy and SF universes with a strong following among geeks should have articles, while the most influential piece of literature in the Western world for the last 2000 years should not be treated in equal detail. Practically every chapter and verse of the Bible has been extensively commented, quoted, paraphrased, illustrated or alluded to in art, music and literature many times over. Wars and major religious splits have been caused by the interpretation of some verses. Even an individual chapter such as [[Matthew 1]] is certainly more important for Western culture and history than everything concerning [[Babylon 5]], [[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]] and [[Dune]] put together; heck, I'll even throw in [[Tolkien]], [[Star Wars]] and [[Star Trek]], not to mention all the [[Pokemon]] garbage. Did [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] or [[George Frideric Handel|Handel]] write oratorios based on texts from Tolkien? Did [[Caravaggio]], [[Leonardo da Vinci|Leonardo]] or [[Peter Paul Rubens|Rubens]] produce paintings based on passages from Star Trek? These articles just have to be based in scholarly literature (which this clearly is) and continuously watched for NPOV to prevent fundamentalist Bible-thumpers from taking over. But that's no different from many other articles on controversial topics. [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. Important Biblical text. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 1 July 2005 07:41 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Important Biblical text. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 1 July 2005 07:41 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. Wikipedia is not a place for preaching or Exegesis on Biblical verse. There is nothing academically or otherwise significant about [[Matthew 1]], unlike [[Mark 16]] and [[John 21]]. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 1 July 2005 07:55 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:55, 1 July 2005
Matthew 1 and all similar articles
I've listed this here to question the encyclopedic status of Matthew 1 (and other pages very similar to it Matthew 2, Matthew 3, etc..., including all the individual verses subpages). It is my feeling that this is not what would be expected in an encyclopedia and would likely be better at Wikisource in just fulltext without the commentary (which would likely be POV). I personally believe that this page should probably be deleted as unencyclopedic (with it's objective, textual contents already retained at Wikisource), but am quite interested in community review. -SocratesJedi | Talk 1 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)
- Keep, historical importance, etc. No reason why commentary would necessarily be POV. If it is, change it or send to cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 1 05:50 (UTC)
- My heart says delete, but we've already been through this with other articles on Bible chapters and even individual verses, and they always get kept so instead I'll just abstain. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 1 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
- Keep. Bible passages are certainly encyclopedic, and this article is certainly more than just the text of the chapter. NatusRoma 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
- Keep. We've been through this already. There is no reason why all kinds of minor things in various utterly unimportant fantasy and SF universes with a strong following among geeks should have articles, while the most influential piece of literature in the Western world for the last 2000 years should not be treated in equal detail. Practically every chapter and verse of the Bible has been extensively commented, quoted, paraphrased, illustrated or alluded to in art, music and literature many times over. Wars and major religious splits have been caused by the interpretation of some verses. Even an individual chapter such as Matthew 1 is certainly more important for Western culture and history than everything concerning Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dune put together; heck, I'll even throw in Tolkien, Star Wars and Star Trek, not to mention all the Pokemon garbage. Did Bach or Handel write oratorios based on texts from Tolkien? Did Caravaggio, Leonardo or Rubens produce paintings based on passages from Star Trek? These articles just have to be based in scholarly literature (which this clearly is) and continuously watched for NPOV to prevent fundamentalist Bible-thumpers from taking over. But that's no different from many other articles on controversial topics. Tupsharru 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
- Keep. Important Biblical text. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for preaching or Exegesis on Biblical verse. There is nothing academically or otherwise significant about Matthew 1, unlike Mark 16 and John 21. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)