Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippians 4:13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 28 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 19:55, 28 January 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. --Coredesat 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Philippians 4:13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not sure how this particular writing is notable outside its particular "epistle" To clarifiy, I'm not seeing notability for this particular verse on its own. Navou 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable in and of itself as a single passage. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - compare and contrast with John 3:16, which is notable in itself - Alison ☺ 06:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is clearly a non-notable passage in itself. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete 1) I can't believe we'd want to jump on the slippery slope of an article on every single verse of the bible that someone decides is notable. 2) the article is inherently POV simply because it seems based on one (and only one) english-language translation of the verse. 3) Redundancy: the passage is listed on the main Phillipians article as a notable verse already -Markeer 12:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt as bible-cruft. 70.55.85.148 12:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why salt? ~ Wikihermit 18:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm a little curious about this also. In my opinion, the article is not a recreation, and in the future, if sources are discovered to justify notability, I do not want its creation precluded. Why salt? Navou 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Philippians 4 should be enough. 70.55.91.131 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm a little curious about this also. In my opinion, the article is not a recreation, and in the future, if sources are discovered to justify notability, I do not want its creation precluded. Why salt? Navou 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to SALT this article - Alison ☺ 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thou shalt not commit biblecruft (Targeman 24:7). Send this article to Hell and mercifully burn its author at the stake. --Targeman 13:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Do we need an article on every verse of the Bible? Rackabello 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No cites since the 4th C. A.D.? Bearian 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately there is not enough information on this verse yet, if enough can be gathered in the future, this verse is notable enough, in my opinion, to warrant its own article, but, for now, there is not enough content. --WillMak050389 17:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Markeer. Additionally, no reliable sources with significant coverage prove the individual notability of this passage. VanTucky (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete but certainly do not salt there is significant written commentary on every verse of the bible, and perhaps someone will do these articles on some of the key verses properly. . DGG (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP:but if it must be deleted I agree with what's said above ("recreate when enough information").--Hornetman16 18:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rackabello, Wikipedia is not the bible. Darrenhusted 09:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No but we do Document the notable verses.--Hornetman16 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Epistle to the Philippians. Does not have an extensive history of notability, as some individual passages/verses of the New Testament do. Pastordavid 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pastor David, since your a pastor you should know this is one of the most well-quoted verses in the Bible and one of the most well known. event though it doesn't have much information to the article. It still deserves it's own page exactly like John 3:16 does.--Hornetman16 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not care to get into an extensive debate here, let me say that I respectfully disagree. (A) It was not ever a lynch-pin verse in the early theological debates of the church, such as John 1:1 and the Great Commission; (B) it was never a doctrine-defining verse, such as the Words of Institution; (C) it has not been the object of modern scholarly debate, such as 1 Corinthians 11; (D) nor does it have a secure place in our cultural vernacular, such as John 3:16. I am glad that you find it personally meaningful, as do I. However, devotional value is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. Pastordavid 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Δοξα σοι ο Θεος! it's nice to see a pastor capable of a reasoned, encyclopedic approach to the Bible. Kudos to you, Pastor David. :-) --Targeman 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between me and you, Pastor David, is that your Luthuren (or however you spell it) and I'm Pentecostal. It mean a whole lot more in my church.--Hornetman16 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that has nothing to do with it. The use of Scripture in theological development from 33-1517 has nothing to do with whether or not I am Lutheran (A & B above). Since then, it still is not a topic of debate among modern biblical scholars (C above). It is not a part of the broader cultural vocabulary (E). Further, it is not doctrine-defining even in the modern Pentecostal movement - which instead focuses on places like 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. "It means a lot" is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability - that is, "it means a lot" is a subjective value statement. As I noted above, it "means a lot" to me as well. But in neither of the traditions in question is it a doctrine-defining, or church-defining, verse. Pastordavid 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say it this last time. IT'S NOTABLE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE MOST QUOTED VERSES IN THE BIBLE.--Hornetman16 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there is not a shred of reliable, independent evidence to suggest that provided. VanTucky (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck does indepenence have to do with it?--Hornetman16 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hornetman - step back and chill out for a moment. Please. - Alison ☺ 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck does indepenence have to do with it?--Hornetman16 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there is not a shred of reliable, independent evidence to suggest that provided. VanTucky (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll say it this last time. IT'S NOTABLE, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE MOST QUOTED VERSES IN THE BIBLE.--Hornetman16 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that has nothing to do with it. The use of Scripture in theological development from 33-1517 has nothing to do with whether or not I am Lutheran (A & B above). Since then, it still is not a topic of debate among modern biblical scholars (C above). It is not a part of the broader cultural vocabulary (E). Further, it is not doctrine-defining even in the modern Pentecostal movement - which instead focuses on places like 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. "It means a lot" is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability - that is, "it means a lot" is a subjective value statement. As I noted above, it "means a lot" to me as well. But in neither of the traditions in question is it a doctrine-defining, or church-defining, verse. Pastordavid 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between me and you, Pastor David, is that your Luthuren (or however you spell it) and I'm Pentecostal. It mean a whole lot more in my church.--Hornetman16 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Δοξα σοι ο Θεος! it's nice to see a pastor capable of a reasoned, encyclopedic approach to the Bible. Kudos to you, Pastor David. :-) --Targeman 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not care to get into an extensive debate here, let me say that I respectfully disagree. (A) It was not ever a lynch-pin verse in the early theological debates of the church, such as John 1:1 and the Great Commission; (B) it was never a doctrine-defining verse, such as the Words of Institution; (C) it has not been the object of modern scholarly debate, such as 1 Corinthians 11; (D) nor does it have a secure place in our cultural vernacular, such as John 3:16. I am glad that you find it personally meaningful, as do I. However, devotional value is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. Pastordavid 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pastor David, since your a pastor you should know this is one of the most well-quoted verses in the Bible and one of the most well known. event though it doesn't have much information to the article. It still deserves it's own page exactly like John 3:16 does.--Hornetman16 03:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Notability is not hear-say or opinion, it is something to be verified in reliable, independent sources. Sources with a clear conflict of interest or which are not generally known as independent and reliable are not acceptable verifications of notability. VanTucky (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2007 (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.