Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 143

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Kurykh 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 143

Psalm 143 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article contains nothing but the text of Psalm 143 and some original commentary. Propose redirect to Penitential Psalms. Eliyak T·C 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 04:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Text and translations of the Bible belong at WikiSource, but since AFAIK it's already there, we don't need to transwiki this article. Shalom Hello 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are other articles on specific chapters of Psalms (e.g. see Psalm 130 which was created by the same person and on the same day as Psalm 43). In fact, there is a template for Psalms (Template:Psalms). So by deleting this article, we will be setting a precedent that could viably delete all articles on chapters of Psalms. Essentially, I would say either Expand ton include commentary and explanations of the passages from Psalms not just a translation of the actual on this article and all the others or Delete all of them. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete origional reserach--SefringleTalk 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and cleanup to the standard of some of the other Psalms articles. I don't know enough about the subject to make judgements about it, and requires attention from someone who knows about it. Ultimately, though, Wikipedia is not Wikisource and merely having the text of the psalm is not an encyclopedic article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete some time ago I nominated all the Psalms articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103). There was a strong consensus to keep though no one seemed to discuss what a Psalm article should contain (it really shouldn't even contain the text itself - that should be in wikisource). Psalm 23 for example is six (!) different translations and and huge "In popular culture" section. In the previous AFD people seemed to assume that there was a lot to say about every psalm beyond the text itself (history or commentary), but this is simply not the case. Jon513 09:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge this sermon into something else, or redirect as per Eliyak into penitential psalms. I don't really like separate articles for the 143rd episode of Pokemon either. Wikisource has more versions of Psalm 143 than this particular article, whose POV in this case is confined to the Latin Vulgate and its Catholic equivalent. If this one had something to say (such as a difference in perspective between Vulgate, KJV, etc) it might be more. Mandsford 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this is WikiBooks stuff. And full-text Bible-cruft. 70.51.11.252 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm somewhat surprised to see the claim above that "it's simply not the case" that there's "a lot to say about every psalm beyond the text itself". The Psalms are central texts of both Judaism and Christianity, and every verse has been commented on at length. That might not be covered now, but that's not the question. In the same way, you personally might not be interested in reading about it, but that's not the same as notability. A.J.A. 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The same can be said of every chapter of the Bible. Wikibooks would be a better place to deal with this information. As it stands now most Psalm article are mostly translations. Some have trivia about where they are said by various groups in prayers which can be dealt better in a centralized article about the prayers themselves. A few have large "in popular culture" section which are not about they cultural impact on the world but trivia about how someone quoted a bible verse in a TV show from the 70's. The Psalm in question (Psalm 143 - have you even looked at it?) has nothing beside translations in the article. In fact per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text we should have just redirected it without an AFD, but once it started we should probably see it through. Jon513 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of whether an article on Psalm 143 can be sourced with scholarly commentary, the current article is nothing but translated text. It is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it event the beginnings of one. I've no objections to its recreation as an actual encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect unless it's going to be fixed and made into a proper article before this discussion would be closed. SamBC 12:48, 13 July 2007 (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.