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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis flood narrative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of Noah's ark. Made as a Christian POV-fork of a better article to promote the idea that this is not a flood myth but merely a "flood narrative". jps (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No evidence has been presented to back up the claim of a POV fork. In any case, the topic is much larger than that of Noah's Ark. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An encyclopedic topic backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing the independent notability of the topic. Inherently, this article will overlap with topics such as Genesis (Hebrew Bible), Noah's ark and Flood myth among others, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Alansohn (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for now. I don't see any discussion of a WP:SPINOUT on this article's talk page, nor do I see one on the Noah's Ark or Flood myth pages. Surely an WP:RFC on the subject should preceed an WP:AFD. Also, the presumption that the article is a religiously-motivated WP:POVFORK, rather than a WP:CFORK, is a little disturbing. Ignocrates (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 13#Page move. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the link. PiCo's point in that discussion is ...on point: "The Genesis flood narrative is the Hebrew Bible's version of the worldwide flood myth." Ignocrates (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No evidence that this is a Christian driven POV fork. Story and narrative are words used used in describing a great flood and possible connections to the biblical flood story. Multiple sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. This is certainly not a fork, let alone a POV fork. There is no evidence to support nominator's interpretation of the article's authors' motives.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. That is, keep. The rationale is already fishy--the difference between myth and narrative is fake and vague. There is overlap between the two (and I just scrapped some content the articles shared), but these are two viably separate topics. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article and Noah's Ark pretty clearly follow WP:SUMMARY. POV issues is not a valid reason for deletion, and myth and narrative are synonyms. If someone believes one title is better than the other, the solution is to start a page move discussion not to pursue deletion. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with some trimming to reflect the Hebrew Bible version of events. Til makes that point in the discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an event that is mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity Is almost certainly notable and is a Pretty clear keep.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable event mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination makes no sense. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a POVFORK. Instead, the article describes a famous episode in the Hebrew Bible. Noah's Ark describes one aspect of the story in more detail. -- 101.119.28.200 (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you believe it or not it doesn't matter. Enough people worldwide do believe it and therefore is worthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Passes WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an event that is mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity Is almost certainly notable. Hafspajen (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and gosh, don't people do a check as provided above, see: "Genesis flood narrative" by Googling (124,000 results) – books (1,040 results) · scholar (77 results), and this is now a WP:SNOW. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well said, IZAK Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After 40 days and 40 nights of rain, a little snow is a welcome relief...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is now a merge proposal between this article and Noah's Ark - see Talk:Noah's Ark#Merger proposal. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's not really a CFORK, but it is close; and I don't think it's a POV fork either. I do think that Noah's ark should be merged in to this article though; having them as separate articles doesn't work well, a lot of people are linking to Noah's ark thinking that that's where the whole topic is covered, whereas that's just an article on the wooden boat. The article breakdown is not sustainable, but it's not a CFORK. I don't think either article should be deleted, they should be merged. A deletion would be a full history deletion, and that's not what should happen.GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious How do you know what other people think when they read and/or link to an article on Wikipedia? I'm not sure what you're meaning with the "a lot of people" comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't delete and don't merge the two articles deal with their own subjects, it's perfectly fine as is; this is an encyclopedic worthy topic on its own - it's more notable than all US presidents combined. These AfDs are getting more ridiculous by the day. --CyberXRef^☎ 17:17, 4 February 2014 (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.