This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2008. The result of the discussion was merge. |
To-do list for Biblical Numerology:
|
Somebody salt this page already, it's been deleted at least twice in the past 5 minutes. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm really disappointed in the folks jumping to deletion here. Really, I can understand concerns with copyright violations. That's a reasonable deletion concern. The current content of the page? Fair enough, it needs improvement. That doesn't equal the subject meriting deletion. To parrot Uncle G, there are other tools in the box. FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I restored the deletion request that was recently removed - it wasn't being made because of any copyright violation, but was a request under the Housekeeping category. Am I to understand this article is being merged with numerology, then? Sidatio 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's good that the article survived, but there's still no work being done on it. I'm putting it on my To Do list to merge this article with numerology until such a time as a plausible article can be written. Of course, if the article becomes plausible before I get around to it - well, there'd be no reason to merge it, now, would there? :-) Sidatio 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination): (emphasis added)
"The result was No consensus to delete. However, there is a consensus that the article is quite awful and, to a lesser extent, an apparent consensus that a good article could potentially be written on the subject. Further discussion on how to go about fixing the article and on a possible merge, if temporary, into Numerology should go on Talk:Biblical Numerology. Pascal.Tesson 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"
So, I guess we're having that conversation now.
The article desperately needs credible, verifiable references (we have a fair amount of external links, but nothing cited in-article), and it could use a tear-down and re-write to make it more encyclopedic. For all the talk about keeping this article, no one seems to want to improve it! I know we all have our priorities, but a meaningful edit hasn't been made to this article in over a week. I'm hoping that's because someone's re-writing it as we speak. If that's not the case, however, and this article comes to the top of my To Do list in something like its present condition, then one can only reasonably assume that it's not being worked on and it needs to be merged with numerology - at which time I will make a case to do so.
Now, that's a LOT of time I'm affording this article. This isn't a big priority for me - it's #3 on my Wikipedia list of stuff that needs to be done. The first two are heavy projects, and even they are low on my main list at the moment because of some charity website work I have undertaken, plus the fact that it's month-end at work. So, we're looking at giving this article at least another month to take shape. That should be plenty of time, right? If little to nothing's happened in a month's time here, I think it's fair to assume I'd have a good case for merging the information into numerology until a plausible article came of it. But, like I said - that's at least month down the road.
So, let's get to it! I'll be happy to help shape the article if I have the time, and if it's well on its way to becoming a proper article when it comes To Do time, I'll be more than happy to help out. If it looks like it does at present, though, it seems simpler to call for a merge - and I am a huge fan of Occam's Razor. ;-) Sidatio 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note - there is no way that there could possibly be a numerological significance to the number of notes in a musical scale as the biblical musical scale did not have 8 notes. I think at that time they were stuck with 5 notes. Early medieval music only has 6 notes. kterlep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kterlep (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I know this page is already under attack, but I just had to add a neutrality template to the article; right now, the whole thing reads like a lecture on one person's personal numerological interpretation, rather than an objective discussion. Minaker (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a synthesis tag. If it were a published interpretation, even a single person's viewpoint, there would be no origional research problem including the material. The problem is it appears to be an editor's own original research synthesis. Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't publish editors' own interpretations of the Bible. There really isn't any alternative to footnote-style cites to establish that each claim actually represents a published viewpoint and not an editor's personal view or personal interpretation of the sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the edit history, a lot of different people wrote it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Pwnage8, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it was really written by just one person, or by a hundred, the point is that the article should be more than a collection of personal beliefs (regardless of how many people those beliefs have been collected from) that are presented as fact. As Shirahadasha points out, interpretive or subjective statements should be footnoted to cite which published viewpoints they represent; otherwise, there's no encyclopedic value to the article. My original comment was a resposne to the fact that the article, as it was written, was like an instructional manual on how to interpret the Bible numerologically, as if such a thing can be done objectively. Minaker (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)