Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviticus 18

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I don't think any votes need discounting. -Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leviticus 18

[edit] Initial explanation

Pov fork of The Bible and homosexuality.

[edit] Tally (3/13)

[edit] Admin section

• No explanation of what "Pov fork" means (presumably biased in some way).
• A valid vfd must state what policy the article's existence violates
• It would also help if there were a deadline for making the decision. Uncle Ed 17:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:POV fork for a presumable definition. Also, the deadline is five days from the nomination, which was August 3. And what is this "tally" business? NatusRoma 20:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a vote? I was counting the delete and keep votes. Uncle Ed 23:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what advantage is there to tallying? This is about consensus, not numbers. NatusRoma 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , de-POV, notable Bible chapter.--Scimitar ^parley 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article scarcely skims the surface of the full chapter - it's just a POV fork and if anyone wants to write about the chapter they are best to start from scratch. David | Talk 20:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as it stands this is a POV fork and obsessed with one verse on homosexuality, but I've started a clean-up. --Doc (?) 21:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

(NPOV OT/Hebrew Bible scholar urgently needed!) --Doc (?) 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty much impossible to NPOV any of Leviticus. I know, I tried it before. :p --Veratien 03:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a Wiki on the Bible that this and similar articles could be sent to? This article and articles like it seem very non-encyclopedic to me. Wiki is an encyclopedia - not a concordance or discussion group. (No vote; I haven't read the article). -WCFrancis 21:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It might help if you read the article - but we have had that debate and there is no consensus to do anything different --Doc (?) 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Even from a secular perspective, no one can deny the tremendous historical influence of the Bible. IMO, every chapter and every passage many verses are entitled to an article. I salute Doc for the clean-up. CanadianCaesar 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 23:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable section of the Bible with contemporary relevance. Well done Doc for the cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Leviticus 18 Dodgers 0. FunkyChicken! 03:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite notable. NatusRoma 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable Bible chapter. Uppland 07:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been discussed before. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep important chapter with, as said, contemporary relevance. Punkmorten 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
• Delete. If every verse of the Bible is entitled to a page, then every phrase of the Zohar, Qu'ran, Torah, etc, is also entitled to a page. To grant one special dispensation purely because it's the religious text of choice in the country of origin is prejudiced at best. 'Sides, there are millions of verses in the Bible, most of which are related to others, which would mean millions of redundant pages. --Veratien 03:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a passage we're discussing, it's a chapter. Notice there's only one number in the title. If it were a passage, it would have a title like Matthew 3:16. The mention of passages in this debate are merely obiter dicta. CanadianCaesar 05:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually Matthew 3:16 would be a verse. ;) A passage would be more like Matthew 11:1-4 or else the name commonly associated with a story. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. I'm not a Christian, so thanks for clearing that up. But I think what I meant to say is clear. And yes, maybe not every verse deserves an article, but lots do. CanadianCaesar 22:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I meant book, not chapter. But either way, there's still thousands of chapters in the complete and unabridged Bible. If you create pages for each one, then it jsut gets rediculous. Anyway, this article is major POV, and has almost nothing to do with the majority of Lev 18, and focuses on specific verses. --Veratien 18:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested granting "special dispensation" to the Bible; that is a slanderous strawman argument attributing religious motivations to people who have voted in a way opposed to your view. And BTW, Leviticus is part of the Torah. Uppland 06:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Am I just missing the VFD's for comparable articles discussing the other books? Or did they occur before my time? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:12, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an important chapter. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's really all that important of a chapter, but it's important to current discussion.) May need POV work, but that means cleanup, not deletion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep David Sneek 08:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Veratien. JamesBurns 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, within Christian theology and other scholarly sources I am sure there has been important studies of this chapter. This reminds me of the K5 article on Wikipedia's "anti-elitism" I mention that because I can't find the wiki-policy about it. We shouldn't dumb articles down or make them over-general. There should be respect for expertise, even if it wouldn't make a paper encyclopedia. If we can make proper articles about every Bible chapter then why not? gren グレン 10:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per comments by Veratien. Eclipsed 13:39, 8 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.