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. Core desat 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastes 2:10-11

[edit]

Contested Prod. Text of prod was "Wikipedia isn't the Bible. WP isn't here to provide verse-by-verse copies of religious texts, try Bartleby's for that. As this is unreferenced analysis, it's original research." Seems about right to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contested prod was mine. Author appears to be using WP to evangelize. He also created What's the other side of the mountain? (currently up for speedy deletion), where the entire text of the article is "You want to know what's on the other side of the mountain? God wants you to be removers not climbers." eaolson (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess someone will have to write a WP isn't the Bible essay now... Xymmax (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a bible study guide either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment each individual biblically verse will have centuries of commentary. its part of human life over time, and notability is permanent. But the present article is not a good starting point--someone should do it who is prepared to deal with the Jewish and Christian traditions. DGG (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single passage in the Bible, Torah, etc. isn't notable. • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a site for this sort of thing - and Wikisource has the entire book of Ecclesiastes online - obviating any need for an article here. They have the other books of the bible too. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tell the originator that it is a devout Christian who is asking this. There are plenty of other places on the Web where one can look up that verse, including Wikisource which has the entire text of the Bible. Also, there is a Wikipedia article about the Ecclesiastes book as a whole. I just don't see someone typing "Ecclesiastes 2:10-11" in the search box. If indeed evangelism is the originator's goal, I just don't see how it will work at all even if we keep the article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment At some future time when the popular culture wars are over, i do intend to go through some appropriate commentaries and journals providing a reasonably sized discussion and unquestionably reliable secondary sourcing for a number of biblical verses, in the hope that other will follow me in this. There has been an considerably more written about every one of them than about most video games and episodes. Though I'm not going to do this now though for individual articles, as it's too tedious except done in batches. My objective in keeping both sets of articles is exactly the same: documenting notable human activity. DGG (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one per nom, but the not wholesale deletion of Biblical articles, per DGG. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pathetic piece of homework, but on DGG's point there are (generally) better articles in Category:Biblical phrases. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.