Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5

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 no consensus. No prejudice towards a quicker than normal renomination. (Please wait at least one month.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

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)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

• Delete or Redirect. Intro definitely reads like
  Bereishit (parsha). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - A bible verse translation center is another thing that Wikipedia is not. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Times 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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
    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)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Keep because Genesis 1:1-5 (i.e. the first five verses of the
  WP:RS to back them up as they could obviously be developed even more. IZAK (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

• • Actually, Genesis creation narrative seems hazy on where verse 3 belongs, and there's also too much material to merge Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:3, Let there be light, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 together. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let there be light is an article on the use of the phrase in culture; that page again has a distinct scope, and I don't think anyone is proposing to merge it. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Agreed; there's no doubt that enough material exists in Jewish and Christian commentary for such an expansion. I've added a bit more, and could go on for pages if I had the time. -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And that brings me to another point... The discussion at

parshas

, are written inappropriately for Wikipedia because they are based on teaching the faith, not summarizing it. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So I argue that the

Bereishit (parsha). Why do we need to duplicate such material into undue weight? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Right now, there is approximately +28,190 bytes worth of Jewish commentary specifically for Genesis 1:1-5 at

Bereishit (parsha).   — Jasonasosa 09:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand your point.

Bereishit (parsha) does seem to be an article with a specifically Jewish POV, but even if that's the case, it's not really a point for this AfD. -- 202.124.75.67 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What I'm saying is...

Bereishit (parsha) are good enough and do not need spin offs. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Those both have much wider scope, and the content of these pages would unbalance them. IMHO Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are preliminary to the six days, but verses 3-5 go together as a narrative of Day 1, hence my merge proposal. I don't understand the alleged conflict with Genesis 1:1-3 (which was deleted years ago). BTW I revised Genesis creation narrative#In the beginning, during the course of this discussion, moving (inter alia) verse 3 into Day 1, as that and other headings were previously in a muddled order; even then I didn't get it quite right (sorry), but hope that it is now clear. – – Fayenatic London 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles have wider scope, but insufficient depth, given the history and influence of these initial verses of Genesis. It seems there's an

WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here. Fayenatic's suggestion of a merge is a viable possibility, although I still think this article can fly on its own. -- 202.124.72.215 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per IZAK et al. This issue appears to have been dealt with in previous AfDs.75.150.187.201 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK --Yoavd (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZAK actually wrote in favour of keeping these verses "together as a unit". I don't see anything in his contribution which would oppose merger of verses 3, 4 and 5. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is not forum for an extended commentary and cross-comparision on every scriptural verse in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Rig Veda, Upanishad, etc, etc. this is where this leads. This should primarily be kept (as much as possible) to topics and subjects not a continuous or consecutive list of verses of scripture with separate articles. I am sure there is a Bible Wiki out there somewhere for that.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw opinion: I withdraw my above opinions and 'vote' regarding the further creation and expansion of individual verse expanded article listings. I do not support further biblical verse article listings or expansions and feel the issues here with these articles are not solvable by AfD discussion and should arise organically through the primary contributing editors. So let it be done. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is proposing to take this series further than verse 5. Certain introductory passages and other verses are notable on their own, e.g. John 1:1. IMHO the articles on Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 are now worth keeping, but verses 3 to 5 would be better together. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my opinion to Merge this and verse 3 into the better article on verse 4. While this AFD has been running, the page has been expanded a little, but is still not as convincing as a standalone article as Genesis 1:4. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Which again conflicts with Genesis 1:1-3 as a set for (In the beginning). So we are back to a tug-of-war for verse 3. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My suggestion, as other's here have mentioned as well, is to where this individual extended verse commentary ARTICLE listing leads. The articles and information should be limited and kept from "scope-creep", and listed as topics and subject titles and/or merged with such. Delete the listing, merge all information on the subject it addresses into one article. (Was addressing Fayenatics's comments.) No need for "tug-of wars". Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:::The merge proposed creates a tug of war between Gen.1:1-3 (even if stand alone articles) and Gen.1:3-5 (even if merged as one article). Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Fayenatic london (talk · contribs); I now support a merge for Genesis 1:3-5. I was mistaken about verse 3. I checked 13:54, 21 August 2012‎ Fayenatic london (talk - contribs)‎ . . (66,721 bytes) (+23)‎ . . ("1:1–1:2–3 " seems to have been a typo; article consistently refers to 1:1–2:3, i.e. the first chapter plus the first three verses of chapter 2 as a single pericope) (undo) and this user is correct per Levenson, Jon D. (2004). "Genesis: introduction and annotations". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Jewish study Bible. Oxford, p. 13. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the creation of an article called "Genesis 1:3-5" because it sets bad precedent, suggesting that an article can deal with a string of verses that have a subjective beginning and end point (here, Genesis 1:3 and 1:5). Groupings of verses are valid subjects for Wikipedia articles, but the groupings themselves should have named precedent in the secondary literature (ex.

Confusion of tongues). Neelix (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Nelix, Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) already proposed a renaming for Genesis 1:3–5 after said page is created. If you notice above, the User suggested First day of Creation, Creation of light (Bible) or Let there be light (Bible) as possible name changes.   — Jasonasosa 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a subject here: "First day of creation". See e.g. The New American Commentary Volume 1 - Genesis 1-11, page 145. I suggested this and alternative titles above. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposing a merger; I am opposing the initial move to "Genesis 1:3-5". If we cannot decide on a more well-accepted title, then perhaps we are not selecting the appropriate string of verses. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I propose moving the merged page straight First day of Creation. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merger of Genesis 1:3 has now also been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since this is the forum for discussing Genesis 1:3, it would see that if it's not going to be kept, the most natural thing to do would be to redirect it to Let there be light rather than Genesis 1:4. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:4 should both be redirected to Let there be light and then Genesis 1:5 can be deleted.  — Jasonasosa 21:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the community consensus is to keep Genesis 1:4. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems strange to redirect Genesis 1:3 while having Genesis 1:4 to stand alone, when they are part of the same subject. meh   — Jasonasosa 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If Genesis 1:3 is going to be merged, content should probably go into both Let there be light and Genesis 1:3–5 (possibly to be renamed). Then the relation of those two articles should be looked at. I still think that Genesis 1:5 is fine on it's own however. I've seen no policy-based arguments for getting rid of it. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current article Let there be light seems to be a kind of "Genesis 1:3 in popular culture." It's probably not a good merge target for Genesis 1:3. -- 202.124.73.175 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is not well-written yet doesn't mean that it isn't a good merger target. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current article Let there be light should be left, separate from the discussion of the meaning of the Biblical verses. The split is also about right already. Even though it has a section on etymology, there's a reason for that being on that page: to explain the two different Latin translations which are used as mottos. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do not endorse merging Genesis 1:3, if Genesis 1:4 is not going to be merged either. Either they all stand alone or redirect them all. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Genesis 1:4 is not an option, since consensus was to keep that article. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we got that already...   — Jasonasosa 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to keep Genesis 1:4 after it was expanded is no bar against merging smaller articles into it, nor against renaming (moving & redirecting) accordingly. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to make this all-or-nothing. All of these verses are sufficiently notable to stand on their own if they were only sufficiently worked-on; the fact that Genesis 1:4 is already sufficiently worked-on to stand on its own simply means that it is a sub-article of the overarching article, whatever that is determined to be. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you demonstrate that each of these verses is sufficiently notable? There's plenty of Biblical commentary on just about any verse, but not every verse has wider cultural significance deserving an article in a general encyclopedia. I'm satisfied of notability in the cases of verse 1 & v2, but it seems to me that 3-5 make a better unit (first day of creation) to be discussed as a combined text rather than each having a page on their own. (See e.g. the layout of Gen 1:1–13 in the NIV.) For the record, I do not envisage that additional articles should be created for Day 2 etc; Day 1 has more notability, because it's the first, and because of the cultural resonances. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand more strongly with Fayenatic london (talk · contribs)'s argument.   — Jasonasosa 18:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are defining "wider cultural significance"; that is not a term used in our notability guidelines. All of the notability guidelines I can see are clearly passed by each of these verses. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's more than enough reliable sources for

WP:N as well. The fact that only some sources are currently in the articles is not a reason for deletion; AfD decisions are made on the basis of what the article could become. -- 202.124.75.38 (talk) 14:23, 24 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.