Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Cain/Genesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Curse of Cain
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Curse of Cain/Genesis
Unsourced and unreferenced statements in an article mainly consisting of hopeless original research. I see nothing that can be salvaged from this article. MartinDK 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:V and probably WP:NOR. I don't really see the goal of this article either. Jayden54 14:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparent original research. One article on the Curse and mark of Cain is enough, yes? - Mig (Talk) 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Move to footnote in article. This is not original research (there are a number of academic articles that have this same comparison, including BYU Studies and Dialogue), however, it is a good reference material for a hotly debated topic (see talk page of Curse of Cain. It should be put into a foot note rather than deleted in entirety. (And actually, Mig, there is a similar article at Curse of Ham. Unless there is a space issue, we can come up with at least one citation on this topic. However, I agree that it would be a better footnote in the article than a sub-page. Unfortunately, it was created prior to the current citation systems. -Visorstuff 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You are free to move it as you please. You should also cite the multiple academic articles you mentioned. Also, you should really not fill the entire article with citations of the Bible. A mere reference to the texts would be much better.MartinDK 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think the problem is that the article is nothing but citations of the Bible. What's missing is any encyclopedic content that tells us what to make of this comparison. It would be better to say something like "Author X notes that the LDS version differs from the King James version in the following ways....A, B, C." I suspect that this could be done in the LDS subsection of the Curse of Cain article. --Richard 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You are free to move it as you please. You should also cite the multiple academic articles you mentioned. Also, you should really not fill the entire article with citations of the Bible. A mere reference to the texts would be much better.MartinDK 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Richard 03:59, 30 November 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.
