Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark 16:15-18

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 dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20

Individual chapters from the bible or other religious tracts are bad ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, that's the Necronomicon you're thinking of. Chapters from the Bible are presumed Good. However, they're still not encyclopedic. Delete. Barno 20:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove as a copyright violation. Text is from NIV [1] and [2], which is copyrighted [3].--Jwinters | Talk 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying it's a copyvio to publish NIV text? Then G-d has a lot of preachers to sue! I sure hope the Gideons don't use the New International Version, or there'll be fifty thousand hotels getting smushed by the Thumb of God. Barno 20:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment NIV themselves claim: Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. That suggests that the christian's bible is indeed ©. It seems unlikely (and certainly seems to go against what the christians' god has to say on the matter) but there we go. Perhaps this is to do with money rather than real ©? Whilst this is hardly the place to discuss it, I seem to recall something about the christians' messiah being a bit of a lefty when it came to capitalists in the temple. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The original Greek and Hebrew texts are public domain; the KJV is public domain; other individual translations are copyrighted, with the following use permission: "The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted." -- Jwinters | Talk 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, works such as Iliad and Odyssey and such, which are written in one language and then translated are also PD in their original form. The translations of them, however are copyrighted. In the same way, the Bible is not copyrighted, but the translations of them are. Seriously people, this is starting to turn into a religious debate and not a question of Wikipedia policy.
• Delete Wikipedia is not a depository for texts. --DanielCD 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if not a copyright violation. These passages are not notable. -- Kjkolb 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• They are notable enough, just not encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete good spot re copyvio; even if not, it would be for Wikisource. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and two comments:
  1. the Holy Bible is obviously not copyrighted material; however, a specific translation of it can be copyrighted; translations done before a given date which I currently do not remember (around 1927, I think) are not copyrighted for sure; Obviously, there are translations around that are not copyrighted.
  2. passages from the Bible are not encyclopedic; I vote delete because the article is the chapter, while it should be about the chapter (and should not be original ideas: WP:NOR). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment bible verse and passage articles can be encyclopedic: John 3:16. --W.marsh 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses for more. --W.marsh 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Good point, W.marsh: I've marked your quoted article as NPOV and asked questions about the phrasing on the talk page. Thanks for noting it. I've not questioned its place in the 'pedia but that question may well be answered as suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses was a pretty long ones and involved a lot of editors over two weeks. Can we just assume that the decision taken there holds also here and agree over a merge in the way it has been done there? I also remark that John 3:16 is a real encyclopedia article, not just the chapter (but also see WP:NOR in case anyone is thinking of adding something here). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses is about verses with commentary, such as Matthew 5:32, verses with only the source text, such as these, are a pointless duplicate of Wikisource. That said my vote would change if someone added text explaining and analyzing these verses. - SimonP 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per SimonP. Tupsharru 07:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE per DanielCD 132.205.45.148 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Needs impartial commentary to be encyclopedic. Otherwise it belongs in wikibooks. — RJH 17:53, 10 November 2005 (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.