Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2 (2nd nomination)

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 Consensus is without form and void. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:2

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

The topic of this article is too specific (a single verse in the bible), with no content except for copied translations from different versions of the Bible. This should be covered (if at all) in another article with a broader scope, and so this article is not necessary. I propose it become a redirect to Book of Genesis. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genesis creation narrative#The beginning where this verse is discussed in context, rather than just being repeatedly translated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a better redirection target than my proposal. I'd support that instead. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual verses are not necessarily notable, but this one is. I did a quick search, and here are a few articles I found:

Jacobson, Howard. "Origen's version of Genesis 1:2," Journal of Theological Studies 59.1 (2008)
Perry, T Anthony. "A Poetics of Absence : The Structure and Meaning of Genesis 1:2," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)
Young, Edward J. "Interpretation of Genesis 1:2," Westminster Theological Journal 23.2 (1961)

St Anselm (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is proposing redirection, not deletion. Warden (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection implies deletion, i.e. "Delete and redirect." There is no reason for a procedural keep here... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting and redirecting would be pointless. Keep the edit history. – Fayenatic London 02:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Currently the article has a sentence of introduction and then the text of the verse in several translations. Offering source texts isn't a valid purpose of Wikipedia. It may be possible to write an article on this verse, but until then a redirect will be of more use to people. (I agree that this shouldn't have been brought to AfD and should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but we can still deal with it here if there is consensus.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfD is for discussing current redirects. This isn't currently a redirect; it's an article, and we're proposing that the article content be deleted to make way for a redirect. AfD is necessary for discussion of that content. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This comparison of translations of a single line, while interesting in its own way, is the functional equivalent of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion; there is a modicum of commentary that could be considered useful if sourced. I would support the same for Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have made substantial edits and expanded the article twofold. Each of the three aspects of the verse (formless & void, the deep, the spirit) could have a sizeable paragraph written about them. I have made a start, but a lot more could be added. St Anselm (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incorporate in Genesis 1. Despite StAnselm's efforts to give content which I appreciate, my concern is a matter of principle in that I can see no good reason for having articles on individual Bible verses. If they are notable, it is an inherited notability from their relevance to some wider subject or debate. The minimum unit for proper textual analysis and criticism is the paragraph, incident, discourse etc.; in this case Genesis 1:1-2:3 or perhaps 2:4^a. Some verses such as this one, and to a greater extent Isaiah 7:14 and John 1:1 attract a lot of attention and might have some sort of claim to notability, but they are always treated in academic circles as part of some larger whole, except when extremely detailed discussion which lies outside the range of an encyclopaedic article is involved and even then the background is assumed. If detailed analysis overloads the article, given that sub-pages are not allowed, the solution would be a second page Genesis 1:1-2:3 (verse details). By the way, Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 already redirect to Genesis creation narrative. Jpacobb (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genesis creation narrative#The beginning or Delete; Redundant article. — Jasonasosa 07:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per St.Anselm and prior AfD. The subject of at least three scholarly works. I would argue that having a dozen such verse-articles will do no harm. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:2. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, too much detail to fit neatly in larger scope article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, where community consensus on these topics was last assessed, as well as per having sufficient independent RS commentary, etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my view to keep following worthwhile cited additions. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 8 August 2012 (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.