Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Any merging or transwiking or what not is now beyond the scope of this debate. Golbez 23:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John 20 and all of the linked verses

I deleted the entire text of the chapter. There are also links which appear to be an attempt to discuss every single freaking verse of the chapter. Is this a real necessity? Is this original research? Is all that commentary in the verse articles copyright violations? The World English Bible is certainly copyrighted as of 1997, so listing every verse in it is a copyvio. RickK 09:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Of course keep, the Bible as a highly notable religious text needs to be covered in comprehensive detail. Everyking 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would it be original research, when the articles give references to published commentaries? Upland 10:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per the discussion and conclusion to keep on VfD John 20:16. Commentary is not original reseach. Commentary on the verse does not violate copyright - commentary on a text is always within the bounds of fair use; it is the actual copying of a text beyond the bounds of fair use that violates copyright, including excessive quotation. There are almost certainly non-copyrighted versions of the bible available if there was any doubt about the amount that was being quoted.--AYArktos 10:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 12:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep John 20. Merge and redirect the rest to John 20:1-10 and John 20:11-18 or keep if they're large enough. Also, AFAIK the World English Bible is public domain, and if it isn't we should fix our article about it. JYolkowski // talk 13:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I've had a look at all of the verse articles now and I think all of them are big enough to stand on their own, so change that to a keep. I would still recommend that short articles on biblical verses be merged into passages though. JYolkowski // talk 18:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "I deleted the entire text of the chapter." Thank you. Simply repeating the text is not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a primary source. "There are also links which appear to be an attempt to discuss every single freaking verse of the chapter. Is this a real necessity?" How the articles are structured is a minor concern VfD need not be bothered with. Summary articles can be instituted as appropriate for verses that do not merit individual articles. As for the discussions themselves, they are notable and verifiable, vide the sources listed, and must be covered. Wikipedia aims to be complete. "Is this original research?" Not as long as the commentary is sourced. "Is all that commentary in the verse articles copyright violations?" The commentary? Of course not. If any parts of it are, remove and rewrite as appropriate. "The World English Bible is certainly copyrighted as of 1997, so listing every verse in it is a copyvio." No, for two reasons: a list of verses in the Bible is not copyrightable, this scheme having been established long before any period copyright can be applied to, and second, what AYArktos said. JRM · Talk 13:50, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Keeping John 20:16 was a bad idea when it was up for VfD a while back, and keeping this is a bad idea now. What we need is a new sister project like Wiktionary or Wikisource, maybe called Wikibible, where this sort of thing can be discussed. But it's just not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Angr/_comhrá 13:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please notice your examples of sister project, as is the case with all Wikimedia sister projects, are medium forks (as in, the kind of information presented, not content forks. It is an utterly ludicrous notion to determin that every group of articles which may run into the thousands should have a seperate project. Why don't we get rid of all the anatomy articles? As you rightly point out, this has already been discussed and the community has decided to keep. Finally, what is unencyclopaedic about it? --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16 was held only a few months ago, I don't see much reason for a second debate on this issue when the last one seemed fairly clear. Also the reason the World English Bible was chosen is because it is public domain and we don't need to worry about copyright issues. If I had the option I would much rather have used NIV or another better known version. - SimonP 14:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concurring with all arguments to keep above (except no vote on the merge/redirect proposal). Samaritan 16:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seem to be well written articles. Excellent stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed the copyright violation on the World English Bible. RickK 20:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Actually two people have already mentioned that it is in the public domain. See also their website - SimonP 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If there are copyvios, replace the quotes by equivalent references to the KJV e-texts or another public source. Deleting the articles would seem to a bit overkill. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: We have attempted to discuss the copyright issues - please see my vote above and also the comments of JRM and SimonP. According to this encyclopaedia the World English Bible (confirmed by the web site of the World English Bible) is public domain. Secondly all of the verses of Chapter 20 in the Book of St John equate to less than one page's text in my version of the Bible (King James) and there are well over 800 pages - no way would quotation on this magnitude violate anybody's copyright law - but this is a tangent as the version of the bible being used is copyright free.

This discussion is clearly distinguished from recent discussions of excepts of the bible without commentary: VfD 1:26 and VfD Isiah 45. It is however, a seemingless gratuitous reprieve of the earlier discussion on VfD John 20:16 which concluded that commentary on bible verses was within the scope of Wikipedia. --AYArktos 21:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I would consider this, for its past nomination, an invalid listing. --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep factual discussion about bible verses is notable. Delete the source text as unencyclopedic, possible move to Wikisource if it's not copyrighted. Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Angr. Megan1967 08:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • To delete articles is a heavy responsibility. Perhaps you would like to expand on your reasons for voting delete? --Oldak Quill 10:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The community has already determined to keep individual verses, why would it be different now? --Oldak Quill 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — mark ✎ 19:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's just a copy and paste from the bible. It's not needed here. --Ufotofu 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the introduction and analysis are copied/pasted. Kappa 23:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A section of the Bible relating to the resurrection of Jesus is notable. Capitalistroadster 23:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. God cruft. Bible sections belong in wikisource and without them all that remains is original reseach. --Gmaxwell 00:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • With reference to, say, John_20:1, please point out the original research in this series of articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks, which takes annotated works. —Korath (Talk) 02:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Gmaxwell. Plainsong 06:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Radiant_* 13:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As with previous discussion on John 20:16, it is not original research as shown by references and clearly not a copyvio. Bible commentary is encylopedic as would be commentary on any other major religious text. Put the full quoted text in wikisource if you really must, but please explain how bible commentary is unencylopedic - every other article in wikipedia consists of facts and commentary about a notable thing - how is this different? Fuzz 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, however, perhaps there should be a policy decision that, rather than having just one Bible version or translation, this type of page (template) needs to have a link out to the extensive list of online versions at such places as [Gospelcom.net. Peter Ellis 02:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only thing I would add to what Korath wrote above is that the commentary in this article ought to be moved to Gospel of John, if appropriate. -- llywrch 23:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the commentary in the articles on each verse? These are far to long to be merged into the Gospel page. - SimonP 00:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.