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 of the debate was DELETE. This one stands apart from the other biblical nominations (there must be a pun in there). SimonP's defense is absent; he recommends outright deletion instead. The numbers opting to delete this are substantially higher than those opting to keep, and the gap between them is much wider than in the other nominations, so clearly there is a desire for an otherwise-inconsistent result in this case. Clearly, the concern is the extreme paucity of actual non-source content; the semi-sentence that there is is subtrivial and a repetition of the title in words. Babajobu, do note that this article does not even come close to beginning to consider doing any of the things you mention, unlike some of the other bible entries. I'm not going to orphan this article as is often done at the end of an AfD, however, since there remains the possibility of a non-'cruft' version emerging into the light. -Splash^talk 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John 20:19[edit]

n.n. Biblecruft. Content is

• John 20:19 is the nineteenth verse of the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John in the Bible.
• followed by 2 translations of the verse

That's all that's in it.

• Delete with prejudice. There should be no article under this title in wikipedia. It is never likely to contain anything encyclopedic. --User talk:FDuffy 14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this verse and all other Bible verses into broader articles. Logophile 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• With no content other than two translations of the verse this is quite useless, and certainly isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete this, but with no prejudice against an actual article on this verse being written. - SimonP 15:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we need an article for each individual bible verse. -- MisterHand 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; as it currently stands, it is not an encyclopedia article. A number of other articles on single versed were deleted some months ago. We still have John 3:16, but this is a real article, not just the text. - Liberatore(T) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Will all of these invidivual Bible verse articles be used to analyse their meanings, interpretations, differences between translations, etc in a meaningful way? If all they are doing is reproducing translated Bible verses, scholars have different editions of online Bibles to refer to already. Could the author of these articles please demonstrate why these verses have been lifted above other, arbitrary verses and what their intentions are for improving scholastic research in to the Bible using WP as a resource? -- (aeropagitica)  17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This verse isn't worth an article on its own. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into a single encyclopedaic article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indeed speedy verse article with no commentary as empty. Whether any given Bible verse can merit an article can only be decided when someone writes that article - and shows the importance of the verse (we've had this debate already). --Doc ^ask? 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, permanently, without this article being re-created in any form. This is simply not the way to treat books of the bible. Talk about subjects like the Genealogy of Jesus, not the verses one by one. The verse structure is a mediaeval construct. Often the books were divided into verses and chapters simply in such a way as to get a nice or significant number of them, like 50 (n.b. one of the gospels, I believe it is Mark, has 666 verses in total), rather than trying to respect the original sentence divisions. The only reason they weren't deleted/merged half a year ago is because the closing admin was biased and chose to count the vote as a keep despite the fact that twice as many people voted to delete and/or merge the articles than did to keep them. --Victim of signature fascism 01:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Wikisource material. --Golbez 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Factually accurate and verifiable. There has already been precedent to keep articles on bible verses. Oldak Quill 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Transwiki per Golbez -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject is a fair topic, but the article has no commentary on the verse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge. (There might not be anything to merge.) The Bible is a major book, but the division of the Bible into verses is mostly arbitrary. The most encyclopedic way of treating its content is by articles on passages or chapters. — mark ✎ 08:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete biblecruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reason given to delete. -- JJay 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable verse or Merge into an appropriate article. -- jaredwf 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Easter or Resurrection of Jesus. KHM03 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, whoa whoa whoa, guys, I'm not religious at all, but the Bible (and the New Testament as part of the Bible) is the most obsessively studied and interpreted and commented upon book in human history. Every single verse has been subjected to endless hair-splitting and analysis by theologians. There is more than enough material out there for a lengthy, informative article on any bible verse. Are Bible verses less notable than individual characters from video games? I think not. Babajobu 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.  Grue  09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete per nom. Wikipedia is easily changed if this article ever provokes any discussion, but we don't need hundreds of articles on bible verses when there's not much more than the verse itself there. The only bible verse article I would support is John 3:16, no other verse is a widely known. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We appear to have articles on every verse between Matthew 1-6 and John 20. I don't know if it's too much work to delete them all; deleting some of them piecemeal will leave us with a random collection of red wikilinks in the "next verse" segment of the page. It's too late for me to unravel this. No vote. Stifle 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dsmdgold 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Notice that somebody has begun a similar project with the Rig Veda (see Hymn of creation. Where will it stop? Logophile 13:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--ragesoss 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. this is a very interesting project. Kingturtle 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Angr (tɔk) 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments. Eusebeus 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merging any new information into Gospel of John. SimonP's arguments are not persuasive in this case. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:38, 9 January 2006 (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.