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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Article moved to Soul in the Bible, and stub recreated in its place. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nephesh[edit]

Nephesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Questionable notability, almost entirely original research, unencyclopedic content. Nephesh is a Hebrew word from the Hebrew Bible. It is unclear why a Wikipedia article is needed to provide information about this word. It appears to me that this article has been hijacked to promote a certain sectarian theological understanding of the soul and life after death rather than actually explaining the word nephesh. Tonicthebrown (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The charts seem to get off track, but the solution here is to edit the article, charts included -- not delete it. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article was once much worse. It was originally a long quote from a chapter by E.W. Bullinger in his Companion Bible as indicated at the end of the article and in the notes. I've been doing some editing from time to time including and expanding on that chapter. The article is important in that it is actually about the Biblical word soul which is only translated from nephesh (OT) and Psyche (NT). I've been thinking that it should be renamed Soul (Biblical) to indicated its real topic. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The article was once much worse" is not an adequate justification for a bad article. (This sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Renaming the article is a separate question. Another name may be appropriate, but this article as it stands is certainly only tangentially related to the Hebrew word nephesh. Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Being worse" was an explanation not a justification. And deletion does not make a "bad" article better, editing does. And the article is all about how the words nephesh and psyche are used in the Bible. Not only is the word soul translated only from these wrods, but all the other English words (131 of them in the NIV) are directly related to the Biblical meaning of soul. This is exegesis not eisegesis. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a useful article that needs improving not deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabucogold (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems that the antagonist is driven more by dislike of the contents rather than real interest in encyclopedic integrity, but is using that facade to enforce his view point. Let the article be edited to proper format. WebEdHC (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The word is not merely a Hebrew word -- it is one of the Hebrew words commonly translated as "soul" in English, and therefore of great philosophical, theological, historical, and linguistic interest.

Biblical and historical scholars frequently explore the literal and contextual meanings of various words in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scripture to gain insight into the actual meaning of scriptures and their likely historical intent. Since the concept of "soul" is a very important theological one to all three major religions of the West (as well as in the entire history of Western philosophy), it seems to me that having a Wikipedia entry devoted to the Hebrew word translated as "soul" is absolutely appropriate.

The original objection mentions Wikipedia violations such as "original research", but objecting to the content of an entry does not mean you should object to the entry itself. (If the Wikipedia entry on "automobile" consisted entirely of orig. research, would you delete the entry?)

In short: the article may need work, but this is an appropriate entry for Wikipedia, as it concerns an important concept and not merely a foreign language vocabulary word. StrangeAttractor (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept the arguments that have been made. I will move the existing article to a more appropriate title, and re-create Nephesh as a stub. Thanks all for your input. Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2010 (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.