Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103

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. Mailer Diablo 02:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 103

(I am also nominating Psalm 104, Psalm 119, Psalm 23, Psalm 51). Do we really need to present every Psalm as it's own article? Isn't this what wikisource is for? Jon513 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Psalm 23 is one of the most well known passages in the Bible, one that has been made into song lyrics in thousands of languages, and an important element in the Christian and Jewish faith. Many non-adherents of the faith may also be interested to find out what it is actually about. There is enough information on this Psalm to discuss as an indivudial article, and personally I find it a good and very practical source of information. --gc_susetyo 15:20, 31 March 2006 (GMT+1)
• Speedy Keep - utter rubbish. The translation Psalm 23 ('The Lord is my shepherd') is the most popular poem/hymn in the English language, Psalm 51 not far behind. Their impact on language, art, music and Christian and Jewish theology cannot be underestimated. Wikisouce is for primary sources not for a description of the importance, impact, and influence of these texts. There are only 150 Psalms (compared to millions of schools and barely notable bands), so having an article on every one (which we don't yet) is perfectly appropriate. Ridiculous nomination. --Doc ^ask? 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - whether we agree with it or not, the Bible is still a massive cultural influence. --MacRusgail 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• d, nn, biblecruft, move to a specialist religion wiki A nomination that is a violation of WP:POINT at worst and merely grossly defective judgement at best. Keep - David Gerard 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Agree with above. If there is enough to say about a Psalm, besides its translation, then it should have its own article, otherwise, there might be a case for merging content into the main Psalms article. Deletion is completely inappropriate. (My comments apply to all Psalms nominated for deletion.)--agr 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Doc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Many people in western society today are not familiar with the Bible, its real influence, and what parts of it are more significant than others. It needs a lot of work to be a good article, though. Slowmover 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Doc.--Pal5017 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but this needs to be Expanded considerably. --Liface 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Doc. Even assuming that "every psalm" shouldn't have their own articles, these psalms are exceptional. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I think it's a pretty safe bet the individual psalms, remembered and read for several thousand years after their writing, will prove more durable than the individual episodes of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. (Assuming the article is kept, the precedent should not apply to the individual Proverbs.) Monicasdude 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There had been some previous discussion of bible verses at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Could groups of Psalms be merged together in an acceptable way? Esquizombi 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  These psalms are not grouped in any meaningful way. They're individual articles on diverse psalms that nom is just happening to afd all at once. Besides, psalms aren't "bible verses", nor does their numbering really correspond to the chapters of other books, both of which divisions are of relatively recent origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I realize that psalms are different than bible verses, but I think that they are analogous enough that the dicussions would be relevant. As e.g. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text states, "as per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, entire chapters of the Bible do not belong on wikipedia. Since the Bible already exists in several different translations and different languages at its proper location (Wikisource), any article containing only Bible text should be speedily deleted or redirected as is necessary, and article should only contain as much source text as is necessary for purposes of example." See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew Esquizombi 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree that a lot of the primary source material could be deleted, but I think the articles themselves should be kept. --MacRusgail 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Esquizombi, if you actually look at the articles, you'll find that only Psalm 23 Psalm 51 contain the entire text of the psalms. (In several different translations for Psalm 51 -- I would support cutting them out.) Even in these cases, however, the text is not the entire content of the article. While all of them could use expansion, they are primarily articles about the individual psalms, not the psalms themselves. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While I'm for merging a lot of the verse articles I think these are good enough. They aren't just replicating the text in different translations, focusing on trivial details to fill space, or could they been merged into something more in a logical way that I can think of. We shouldn't set any precedent though, each needs to be judged on their own merits. (There has been a lot of discussion over bible versus, I think most of them are linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:9 including the arbcom case that is on going.) kotepho 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep chapters of books of major religious texts. youngamerican (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per agr. Please note that I agree with the other editors who have called for the full psalm text not to be included in each article. --Metropolitan90 08:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. I also agree that the full text shouldn't be included. youngamerican (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • We should make that decision on basis of what makes a good article. Clearly including the whole text of Psalm 119 would be disproportionate. But other Psalms are very short (some just 3 sentences). As with Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry it may make sense to include copyright free versions where available. We need to be pragmatic here - neither include or exclude text just for the sake of it. --Doc ^ask? 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all. Dsmdgold 20:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• 23 Psalm is probably the best known and one of the most important psalms, and an entry on it is necessary.Ncox 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Psalm 23 is very famous. Psalm 104 is important, for one thing, because of the link to the Great Hymn to the Aten. We don't need an article on each and every Psalm, but some are worth it! Paul B 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is one of the more famous psalms, often quoted and referred to. The fact that it's part of a collection shouldn't affect that. Ratbat 0:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- This provides a great article especially referencing the history and meaning behind one of the most famous literary works namely Psalm 23
• Keep Moe ε 02:45, 1 April 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.