Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm articles

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 without prejudice to recreation. As DGG points out, sufficient secondary sources could conceivably be produced to create an encyclopedic article on these verses. At that point, these articles could be re-created directly, incorporating the secondary sources. Alternately, consideration to a centralized article or discussion could be entertained by the involved editors. However, the delete voters' arguments are compelling for the articles as they now stand. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm articles

Psalm 69 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Psalm 96 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The material does not seem to justify separate articles for these psalms. --Eliyak T·C 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Granted they're not good right now, but I'll try and expand them if that would be agreeable. As chapters of the Bible, there has to be a wealth of info on them from which articles could be created. Carl.bunderson 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep likewise. I am acquiring one or more commentaries on the Psalms shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27 14 August 2007 (GMT).

• Delete-- I seem to recall a bru-ha-ha about bible verse articles about a year ago. John 3:16 should get an article; there's nothing that can be said about these verses. Delete both. humblefool® 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The resent articles are extremely sketchy, but we are judging the notability of the subject. Every individual psalm has had hundreds of pieces of criticism and analysis over the two and a half millennia since they have been written--and in fact, the NT verses in the articles represent some of that, and the fact of the quotations by itself has a similarly large amount of analysis. The Bible has been the chief intellectual concern of millions of people for thousands of years. DGG (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No Psalm article contain anything of value. 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 (List of Jewish prayers and blessings, Prayer in Christianity etc). A few have large "in popular culture" section which are not about how they culturally impacted on the world but trivia about how someone quoted a bible verse in a TV show from the 70's. The Psalms in question have almost 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. There was a similar discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 143 - which resulted in a delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psalm 103(a group deletion of all psalm article that currently existed) - which resulted in a keep (Most people said that there is plenty to say about a Psalm besides its translation - but a year and a half later the articles look the same and I haven't yet seen anything which should be in the articles). Jon513 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely notable. Amazon Book Search lists 182 commentaries on (not translations of) the Psalms; the Oxford University Library Catalogue [1] lists 5,776 works on the Psalms (including translations). These articles may need work, but the potential is certainly there. We already have the beginnings of a good article on The Song of Hiawatha - surely an individual Psalm is a poem with at least as much notability? 79.73.45.86 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete along same lines as reasons User:Jon513 gives. Even the article on Psalm 23 is little more than a huge dump of pop cuture trivia. Mangoe 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it useful.QueenAdelaide 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Delete these two articles, but Keep most other psalm articles. This deletion should be without prejudice to their recreation, when some one is prepared to provide a proper article. The text of the psalms should not be quoted at length: that should be in Wikisource. Once the text is removed, there will be little or nothing left. There is no reason however why commentaries on (or other discussions of) particular psalms should not be encyclopaedic and thus why there should not be articles on them. This will on occasions involve the liturgical use of particular psalms and the historical context in which they were written (where known). There is a problem over the numberring of the later psalms and I would suggest that this should be that of most English language bibles, but an "other uses" link should be provided at the head of each article, for the benefit of Jews and others using the other numberring. Peterkingiron 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Psalm 69 is briefly quoted in the article currently named Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus, but that is also to be rewritten. In time, an article on Psalm 69 will be useful for a fuller discussion of views on its interpretation and claimed fulfilment in Jesus. The article has some value even now by linking to the citations in the Gospels. It is also a useful placeholder for the link to Ministry (band)'s similarly-titled industrial music album. I would therefore keep Psalm 69 but delete Psalm 96 as it stands. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In response to DGG, and 79.73.45.86 who both point out that there are a lot of commentaries on Psalms and therefore should be kept. I would like to point out that there are many many commentaries on every single sentence of the the bible. One could in theory write an article for every single bible verse and quote Nahmanides, Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra as well as all the Christian bible scholar, and all the bible critics. That would be a bad idea. Beside the fact they they are unmaintainable, there are major themes in bible (especially in psalms), and having an article on every chapter make it so you can't see the forest from the trees. Better to deal with themes (musical adaptions of Psalms, Psalms in prayer etc). If one would want to write a summary of the every verse of the bible according to each commentary I think wikibooks would be better suited. Also I have not seen even a single one of these bible commentaries quoted in any of the psalm articles. In fact I am not quite sure what type of information you think do belong in the article (the articles are now translations and trivia) - you just seem to be convinced that there must be something to say. Jon513 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both without prejudice for recreation. Psalm 96 could just as easily be placed in Wikiquote, as it seems to be nothing other than a brief introduction, text and translation. Pslam 69 could potentially say more, but right now it doesn't have sufficient content to justify a separate article. It would be nice to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible get a bit more help in working on articles of this type, but that group doesn't seem to get much help. John Carter 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as per above. The centralized discussion above does for 96, and 69 has no useful content. --Darkwind (talk) 00:02, 21 August 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.