Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King James Bible Statistics

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. Consensus is for either deletion or merging, butthere is no agreement at all as to where it should be merged. Overall, the supporters of deletion have the strongest arguments here. Fram (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King James Bible Statistics

This is an unencyclopedic topic which is a violation of Wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information. At the same time, all of the citations are to the bible itself, so it consists entirely of original research. Redirect is needless since it doesn't seem like a likely search term, and nothing to merge since there is no sourced information The Seeker 4 Talk 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Nomination:

"consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content"
"investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it"
"The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." Timlight (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information looks useful and encyclopedic. Merge with Authorized King James Version. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge the more useful material to King James Bible. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic? more useful material? please provide an explanation Timlight (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "King James Bible Statistics" and you'll have 979,000 results but it doesn't mean it's 100% encyclopedic and reliable. Timlight (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - An encyclopedia article on a given model of car should include a technical description of the car, such as length, width, wheelbase, engine displacement, horsepower, type of construction, top speed, acceleration, etc. An article on any book can reasonably contain technical information such as number of pages, number of chapters, type of binding, size, different editions, etc. An article on the Authorized King James Version can reasonable contain a similar technical description-- number of verses, books, chapters, longest and shortest books, chapters and verses etc. In addition, things like the shortest verse ("Jesus wept.") are common knowledge for a lot of people and arguable notable information about the book. Perhaps not all of the information in King James Bible Statistics would be appropriate for inclusion, but a lot of it is and should be merged with Authorized King James Version. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be transwikied to Wikisource at all? I'm not familiar with the details of what they take.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things were considered by the author and updates were made. Anyone here possibly will review and edit the stubs I made so are there any more suggestions? (Someone is so nice to add a real explanation)---Timlight (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With either Authorized King James Version or King James Version -- either destination is adequate for the data presented here. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Authorized King James Version. The latter seems to be the best place to contain this type of information. Considering it appears that most of this information comes from the source (http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html) why not just add that as an external link to the afore mentioned article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge isn't a possible outcome. "Merge" means the article history is retained because of the GDFL, so "Merge" is technically a keep outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source is not limited to (http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html). Authorized King James Version is already a featured article here; merging King James Bible Statistics will only create clutter in it. --Timlight (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this as obscure as the origin of April Fools' Day?; "AfD tagging" is absolutely hilarious! - Timlight (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real list, parts of which reprinted every now and then [1] and [2]. Seems like an obvious merge and redirect to Thomas Hartwell Horne rather than to the article about the KJV. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a separate article on Bible Statistics (a larger work) is a much better place for King James Bible Statistics, but my attempt here is not about a dry list of numbers associated to KJB. Timlight (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss whether to merge with the main article--either would make sense. Deletion would not.The contents is suitable for Wikipedia as would any other descriptive contents of an equally major work. Would make as much sense as to remove population statistics .DGG (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Usage portion has been removed; sample of statistics are within Variations area. Thanks for your observations. - Timlight (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator did not explain why they considered the topic unencyclopedic and the sources are clearly not limited to the bible itself. (basically the nomination is missing a policy/guideline based reason for deletion) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism done by AutisticMonk talk

(cur) (prev) 17:21, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (23,421 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:59, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (23,416 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:10, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (18,893 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 15:17, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (17,615 bytes) (→History) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 14:03, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (16,704 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:43, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (16,827 bytes) (Some references were removed, but I thought the links were still applicable.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:51, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (7,700 bytes) (→Notes) (undo)

Admins, please remove *AutisticMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23,421 bytes of spam/deliberate article violation on King James Bible Statistics --Timlight (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - although again (like you posted at RFPP, where you requested full protection), you could have removed this yourself. This is not vandalism, and I'm not sure what an "article violation" is. Tan | 39 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Deliberate insertion of personal opinion into an article is already a type of modification. The issue is not just about inserting 23,421 bytes (or more) of letters/words but the repetition of it. I could remove unnecessary info but article is already under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Besides, Wikipedia editors work on improving an existing content, not on deleted article. --Timlight (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability of this topic established via reliable sources. If there is a significant Christian movement that uses this (incomprehensible to me) method to evangalize or convince people of whatever they're trying to people convince people of by counting punctuation in the king james bible, that movement might deserve an article. But this is largely original research and beyond that (to me) largely undecipherable. There also appear to be some NPOV problems here -- these "statistics" are used by one group appearing to try to advance an argument -- but the "statistics" themselves would likely be contested by many other christian groups as irrelevant or wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be some interesting information that could go in the article for the main author listed, but this article reads like its from a specific christian encyclopedia, not the one its in now. if someone can rescue it so it reads like a neutral discussion of notable material published on the bible, go for it. i have my doubts its possible. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bible statistics here are quoted because they're part of an argument used by pro-KJB groups in preaching, evangelism, seminar, and publications ^[1], hence the title "King James Bible Statistics". Bible statistics has been controversial ever since the debate on Bible translations erupted as cited (indirectly) by articles on Bible version debate, King James Only movement, and List of omitted Bible verses. "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are considered "smear words" but "King James Bible Statistics" is not and that's a big difference in its usage. --Timlight (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If there's bias, let's fix it. --Timlight (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial coverage. How many times are you gonna comment/vote here, Timlight? Tan | 39 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The Believers Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 3 by Theological Research, September 2003

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on re-reading all the arguments. This is, fundamentally, a list of trivia. There are no notable religious teachings here, and no true scholarship.
When I was researching my !vote for this, I couldn't help noticing that similar content appears in other wikipedia articles for other Bible versions (e.g. Masoretic Text), so there's probably a case for expanding this AfD to include other Bible-related trivia.
It all probably does have a place in some wiki that's specific to the Abrahamic religions, so I'd support a transwiki if anyone knows of one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about a small set of facts like this concerning the text. No evidence presented of mainstream sources taking notice of this so-called debate. JJL (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anachronistic idea of mainstream. For centuries the detailed study of these things was very much mainstream. Andsince when does WP only consider the mainstream,anyway? The wiki that extensively treats the Abrahamic religions is Wikipedia. The major preoccupation of most of Western culture for millennia is central to our purpose. DGG (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of 'King James Bible Statistics', this article should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant as opposed to the many references to "Believers" web sites in the article. Perhaps "disinterested" would have been a better term to use here. I'm aware that many individuals have gone beyond mere concordances to count the number of X in the Bible, but don't see evidence that this count for the KJV is notable, esp. in the context of the opening sentence of the article, which states that it's about "a label used by "KJV Only" groups, like The Believers Organization,[1] to promote and preserve the highly contested superiority of the (KJV)". . If that is a notable endeavour, surely someone has noted it in all this time? JJL (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to King James Only movement. As far as I can see, that's the group most associated with this topic. Don't merge with the KJV article. At most a sentence belongs there. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2009 (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.

[1] The Believers Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 3 by Theological Research, September 2003

[1]