Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5

Genesis 1:5

Genesis 1:5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete. The page contains very little commentary, and even that reads like obvious WP:OR. It would be possible to create an article, but this is not it. I cannot even see any point keeping the page history behind a redirect. I voted to keep Genesis 1:2 after it was expanded, but unless Genesis 1:5 is improved shortly then it should go. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 17. Snotbot  t • c »  13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect. Intro definitely reads like wp:or; and is already covered in Genesis creation narrative and Bereishit (parsha). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - A bible verse translation center is another thing that Wikipedia is not. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Poor writing is not a reason for deletion. This article clearly passes our general notability guideline, as a simple Google Books search demonstrates. If the article cannot currently stand on its own, it should be redirected to Genesis creation narrative. There is no added benefit to getting rid of the page history. Neelix (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced that this is the manner we're best served in presenting information about these Biblical passages. While it's true that probably every Bible verse has seem some examination by religious scholars, theologians, and textual interpreters in the intervening centuries (since versification in the 1550s), I'm dubious that most Bible verses are a "topic" in and of themselves rather than a component of the wider whole. The minutiae of Shakespeare's works have been well-examined, but we present articles about his plays, not about each act. Certainly, there are going to be some Bible verses that have attracted particularly renowned focus such that we can craft an in-depth article: John 3:16, John 11:35, and, yes, probably Genesis 1:1, for example. But I don't see that here, and the state of the article does nothing to convince me otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect. My rationale has not changed, but there's no compelling reason to expunge the page history and this is a plausible search term. I'm ambivalent as to whether Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis is the more appropriate destination, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Book of Genesis, at least until a content fork is necessary. §everal⇒|Times 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The first few verses of Genesis have thousands of years of detailed Christian and Jewish commentary. There is plenty of material for an article here, as there was for Genesis 1:4. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My problem with these by-verse Bible articles is that the above statement, strictly speaking, isn't true. For example, while the Zohar engaged in a great deal of detailed analysis and interpretation of Torah passages, it is inaccurate to say that it did so by verse, because the Zohar predates Biblical versification. Rather, any source prior to ~1550 necessarily examined Biblical passages in a larger context (and most after that date have done so as well): either by book, by narrative section, or in some cases, by parshah. I do not dispute that there has been a great deal of historical attention paid to these words; I dispute that they are independently significant, any more than each act and scene of a notable play is, itself, worthy of an independent article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that adds to the case for merging this (and verse 3) into the page on verse 4. – Fayenatic London 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The thousands of years of commentary may pre-date versification, but since the commentary is by sentence it corresponds to the versified structure. Merger is a possibility, but there is more than enough material for an article here, if someone will make the effort. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The interpretation from the Kabbalah can probably be expanded significantly, but would need more expertise than I have. -- 202.124.74.10 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Genesis 1:4. The two verses together constitute a single "incident" in the creation story. The other verse now has a substantial aricle - unless substantially expanded. Note my vote on Genesis 1:4 is to Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As nominator, I have no objection to merging this page into Genesis 1:4 now that the latter has been expanded and improved. In fact, merging Genesis 1:3 into it as well might be a good outcome, as these three verses form a closely connected narrative of the first day. I suggest that the merged article should initially be moved to Genesis 1:3–5, pending a separate discussion on renaming e.g. to First day of Creation, Creation of light (Bible) or Let there be light (Bible). – Fayenatic London 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible, that would make them a key axiom and foundation for everything else that follows in the Bible. That is why thus far multiple AfDs to do away with the first 2 verses' articles have failed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination) and why this article as well as the two others about Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 are to be kept as a complete coherent set since it makes no sense that there are articles for the first two verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 describing the First Day of Creation (i.e. the most important event when everything begins according to Judeo-Christian civilization), and not for the three others that are part of one set. No one imagines that a famous paragraph consisting of five sentences (the Bible's opening paragraph) should only cite two sentences, as that would make no sense even in human terms. Thus these are both WP:N and there are plenty of WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this argument actually underscores the reason why this material shouldn't be presented in this manner. No one is arguing that Wikipedia should not discuss the opening lines of Genesis. The references which discuss this material do not examine each line in isolation; they interpret these verses as part of a wider whole -- a "coherent set". Indeed, before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all! Your comparison is apt, however; we would not have separate articles for only a couple sentences out of a famous paragraph ... but that is because we would not partition that paragraph out into articles for each sentence whatsoever (for example, Four score and seven years ago is a redirect to Gettysburg Address). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Squemish: Either the first five verses are kept together as a unit, and improved, or they do not make sense separated from each other. The importance of the first two verses has been acknowledged and affirmed by multiple AfDs, but in terms of logic and coherence they can only make sense if all five verses are cited. But they should not be split up and palmed off into "themes" because that's not how the Bible is read and understood. As for your contention that "before 1550, there was no division of the material into verses at all!" you are wrong because in Judaism there are verses and smaller divisions and the first five verses are one unit, see Parashah#Spacing techniques, this goes back way before the 1500s, to the +-3000 year Masoretic Text. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You are entirely correct that the parashot predate the versification of the Bible (indeed, even some of the Dead Sea Scrolls use a system of spacing), however the parashot differ from versification in a number of aspects, including, most importantly, the fact that they are not numbered (some have specific names, but this isn't one of them). Prior to Robert Estienne, there was no term of reference specifically to the segment of text now considered Genesis 1:5. With the history aside, I still haven't seen any evidence that there are sources which discuss this verse in isolation. Certainly there are sources which examine this verse, but only in some wider context. That is true of both of the cited references. Kissling spends page 101 discussing this verse, to be certain, but that is in the wider context of an examination of the first day, and then again in a wider context of the entire creation narrative (see the structural outline on p.53); it is even more true of the Zohar, which predates the modern system of versification entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge: Genesis 1:3–5 although a good proposal from Fayenatic london (talk · contribs), conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 (In the beginning). So now we are at a tug of war for verse 3. So, perhaps there is consideration to merge them all into Genesis 1:1-5 as IZAK (talk · contribs) put it "the first five verses of the Book of Genesis) are one logical set that contains the details of the First Day of creation according to the Bible". Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, Genesis creation narrative seems hazy on where verse 3 belongs, and there's too much material to merge Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 into Genesis creation narrative. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The material added to the article, as well sthe numerous sources available that address this specific verse, demonstrate its notability on a standalone basis. The foucs on this article should be on expansion, rather than deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)