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.
Keep, as the passage itself has been the subject of tons of scholarly commentary — probably more than almost any other passage in the Hebrew Bible. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted from the original version to make this easily editable. The AFD creator didn't add it to the log when he nominated it, so I've added it to the log for two days later. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such article currently does not exist. You would have to start from scratch with the existing page to create an indepth topic from scholarly commentaries. Currently, this article is no different than Bereishit (parsha). Thanks, — Jasonasosa 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the sourcing problems derive from a lack of footnotes; I don't know about some of the sources, but others are clearly going to be examples of scholarly input. I suspect that the Oxford Annotated Bible would be an example of this, and the Urbach book, being published by Harvard UP (according to Amazon), looks reliable as well. I just checked a print edition of Keil-Delitzsch, who devote several pages to the topic at the beginning of their Genesis volume; it's my guess that it also appears elsewhere in their renowned series. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim the parent article - If the content is entirely redundant, then I would probably propose editing down the main Genesis article and including a "see ..." reference for the Genesis 1:1. In its English-language version, this is one of the most familiar passages in the entire Christian Bible, and has, as User:Nyttend observes, been the subject of massive amounts of scholarly scrutiny dedicated to this passage alone. --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original AFD link: Link to Original AFD (a keep) - from way back in 2005. The focus here was on whether individual verses should have entries; its use in Creationist ideology; etc. --Lquilter (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete chopping books into fragments and giving each fragment a separate article is just not acceptable, regardless of the book. This is not about notability--it would be grotesque to discuss that--it is about due form and common sense. complainer (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it acceptable? Small passages of the Bible are different from small passages of other books because of the immense amount of work that has been published on the Bible. Yes, it makes sense to have summary articles on larger biblical portions, but when we write enough on a small section that it doesn't fit into a summary article, it should be split out. I've not checked to see whether this has ever been split out of somewhere else, but it's definitely too long to be put anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is notable, has some sources, more exist in numbers as countless as the stars. Lquilter's suggestion has merit as to how to harmonize this with the main Genesis article. (As pointed out in numerous discussions elsewhere, the parsha articles cover a different, although related, concept.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Genesis creation narrative#The beginning. I'm not comfortable with an index location being the title of an article. Compare for example 1 Corinthians 15:45 which redirects to the theological concept of the Last Adam. Reading the article, I'm not sure what it's actually about, aside from being a word by word analysis of the verse. It's inappropriate to separate a single verse from the main account of the creation narrative. asnac (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the merits of the article as it now is, it has potential. The different translations offered regarding the verse are very significant (i.e. much has been written about them) and an explanation fits better here than any other article. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the best known and most discussed biblical verses of all time, backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources discussing that one verse. Surely you've seen the Genesis 1:1 guy who shows up at sporting events wearing his rainbow-colored beard, sidelocks and shtreimel, furiously waving his sign reading "GENESIS 1:1" behind home plate or the goal posts at a football stadium in a bid to attract the attention of television viewers. Surely there must be some other biblical verse that also has encyclopedic coverage similar to this one. If Genesis 1:1 is not the most famous Bible verse, it surely ranks highly in the Top 10 of all time. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to take this seriously, there are over 150 Wikilinks to this article. The nomination provides no plan for fixing 150 Wikilinks, perhaps this maintenance is "someone else's problem"? Nor is merger to a larger topic a serious alternative. Just say what there is to be said about the topic and move on. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, which last assessed community consensus on articles covering particular sections of holy writings--not just the Hebrew or Christian Bibles, FWIW. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing this on an obscure page from two years ago in which 2 people voted support and 1 person voted oppose and another person hedged??? Whatever that page is, it is not authoritative community consensus and shame for suggesting that it is. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above reasons cited. The nominator is being grossly unfair to this article, and each example he cites is from a different context and would not add up in this attempt to artificially homogenize this subject by getting rid of this informative and well-written article. The article does a good job to basically describe and explains a key under-pinning Bible verse for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The article is fair to all points of view and is fully compliant with WP's WP:NPOV policies citing WP:RS that are WP:V. What a pity it is to pick on such an important foundational verse that underpins and is a premise of all of Judeo-Christian culture. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I recently concurred with redirecting Genesis 1:3 which had no significant commentary, but this is well worth keeping. It has substantially different scope from the pages which the nominator mentions as duplicates. It also has references, although I have just tagged the page for these to be moved inline. – FayenaticLondon 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to add a couple of comments addressing some of the substantive complaints / fears about this article (in addition to my !vote of "keep" above).
The article on the creation myth(s) in Genesis should still be complete and flow together as an article, even if this article stands alone. There are many, many precedents in Wikipedia of articles on-the-whole and subparts being split out -- some of them even done well.
Any future discussion of articles on individual verses should note that this verse has repeatedly been singled out as exceptional -- a handful of verses, like Genesis 1:1, John 3:16, etc., arguably merit their own articles, without any concern that we're getting into "verse-by-verse hermeneutics" that would raise the issue of thousands of different articles on individual verses.
Keep -- It is a sad day when it is not appropriate to have a commentary on such a significant verse as this in WP. On the other hand, there will only be a limited number of Bible verses of sufficient significance to warrant such treatment. It might be justified for Genesis 1:2, but only a single article the rest of the chapter on the rest of the chapter, possibly with a second one discussing "evening and morning" punctuation of the story. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2012 (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.