Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bible stories

List of Bible stories

Nominated by me because its a silly list, and POV. The bible can be broken into stories in many different ways, and what constitutes a whole story to one is just part of one for another. Some stories run as threads throughout large chunks of text, others do not. Some run in parrallel. Some people take some stories to be seperate, others identify them as the same. The list is POV. In addition, I object to having the link for "Creation" to "Creation Belief" which is only the view of one small section of Christianity, and should go to "Creation according to Genesis" instead. I feel that there are other POV links, and in addition, each story that is linked to is predominantly POV, i.e. "This means...." rather than "Some think it can mean .... others that it means .... still others think it is just a forgery supporting ....". CheeseDreams 17:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. DeleteCheeseDreams 17:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Given how many articles are present within Wikipedia, I think this is a useful way to get to them (I changed the Creation link). Niteowlneils 19:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not see why it shouldn't just be a new catagory such asthis one, which will automatically list all items which have the [[Category:Bible stories]] tag at the base of them. Thus people can add the catagory as they create the article, rather than have a POV list like this one. CheeseDreams 21:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful information. Presence of POV is not sufficient reason for deletion. If you object to the contents of the list, fix it, don't delete it. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]]

And at the same time you thing Category:Bible stories should be deleted? Pure hypocracy. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories)CheeseDreams 19:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I object to it continuing to exist when there is a perfectly good catagory [[Category:Bible stories]] which automatically lists all the articles claiming to belong to the category. Having the list in addition is POV because it can be selective and choose where things link to. In addition, it is simply not automatically up to date, unlike the category. The Wikipedia policy is to operate article lists via categories, not seperate articles, except with regard to disambiguations. CheeseDreams 01:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, no rational reason given to delete. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and fix it.Pedant 03:24, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
• Keep. The important thing in my opinion is for the Wikipedia community to take the time to deal with this string of apparently frivolous situations :( without giving up either its 1) openness or its 2) insistence on quality. A list page such as this one has a Wikipedia function that is substantially different from a category. From a systems perspective, a list page should include items that are not pages yet--and even items that might not merit a page of their own. A List of Beethoven opus numbers, for example, would contain many works that do not merit separate pages. No reasonable justification for deletion of this page has been given yet. ---Rednblu | Talk 06:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a list there is not much of a problem as it's a mere "list" (like a "shopping list" or "to do list" nothing more and nothing less). IZAK 09:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And at the same time you thing Category:Bible stories should be deleted? Pure hypocracy. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories)CheeseDreams 19:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is precisely because a "List" and a "Category" are so different that I can vote this way. A "List" on Wikipedia can be a very general catch-all and one can be more tolerant of it, whereas a "Category" is a much more precise methodology as it needs to fit with other related Categories or sub-Categories. IZAK 02:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Quite so. The "category title" must be short with little explanation--just an "icon" really--but an icon in words. So the "category title" takes incredible design work, as you say, "to make it precise." In contrast, a List can have a whole paragraph of explanation to distinguish it from all the other lists.

• Keep, but related articles need to balance the biblical account with alternate mythology. Noah is a good example of one going in the right direction. Related articles that are nothing more than retellings of specific bible verses should not be red-linked, but rather referred to by chapter and verse. Links to the Wikisource bible texts would be a nice thing to add there. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

And at the same time you thing Category:Bible stories should be deleted? Pure hypocracy. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories)CheeseDreams 19:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep but add a short description at the start which states that these are narrative elements in the Bible that have been traditionally a) interpreted as units and b) famous. Frikle 00:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Gary D 09:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. useful information --Max Randor 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)