Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 13

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 of the debate was keep. Proto||type 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Corinthians 13

• Delete. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a place for "mere collections of public domain or other source material". Lovelac7 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article is expanded. There are plenty of articles on chapters, books, and stories of the Bible, including two other stubs from the book of 1 Corinthians - 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 11. However, this article has nothing useful. A sourced article on the chapter would be nice, but this article isn't much more than a cut/paste of the chapter. BigDT 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Strong Keep. Could be the basis for a proper article, in keeping with the many other articles on specific chapters. A better start would have been to tag the article with {{cleanup}} rather than jumping to AfD. Fluit 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(Now that it's been "cleaned up" a tiny bit, I see the notability more clearly - it has indeed been used at so many weddings that my natural bias against hearing it one more time must have blinded me.) Fluit 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but with no prejudice against a well-written and well-referenced article on the same topic. (change this to a recommendation to keep if the article is properly rewritten before the AfD runs out.) Tupsharru 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with the current rewrite, but it needs work by someone familiar with academic New Testament scholarship. Tupsharru 05:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep without the source, which I removed (link to various translations at Wikisource by all means). This is one of the most common readings in church weddings, there is scope for an encyclopaedic article on this subject. Just zis Guy you know? 07:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The notability of the passage, I think, makes it of special note. With expansion it could become a worthwhile article, so I think going straight to 'delete' is inappropriate. --Davril2020 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice against creating a better article. At the moment it's a substub and previously it was little more than a copy of source material. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a significant phrase in this chapter is "through a glass darkly", used in film and sci-fi. Ziggurat 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• DELTE Christian-cruft 132.205.45.148 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article needs attention - but should remain as this passage from the bible is probably one of the best-known in the whole of the New Testament. It contains several resonant phrases. Not just "through a glass darkly", but also "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" and "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity". It is often used at weddings and funerals (notably Princess Diana's where it was read by Tony Blair).Mattmm 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the chapter that contains the passage "Love is patient, love is kind ..." which is commonly heard at weddings. --Metropolitan90 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article stands now. If someone were to create a more in depth, encyclopedic article, I'd support a keep, but until that day come, I do not feel that this is an adequate placeholder.--Andrew c 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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.