- 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 keep. Excellent arguments to keep, but no policy arguments to delete this well-hashed-out story. May be re-named per discussions. Bearian ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath
- Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can think of no valid reason that a particular story in a particular book should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel. As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, nor does it conform to WP:BKD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - while there is no reason why a character within a particular book can't have its own article (see for example the other contents of Category:Books of Kings), there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that cover this event or the character of the widow of Zarephath with the scholarly detachment expected for articles about characters from holy texts (for believers) or collections of mythology (for us heathens). Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is loads and loads of coverage. E.g.
- Stephanie Wyatt, "Jezebel, Elijah, and the widow of Zarephath: a ménage à trois that estranges the holy and makes the holy the strange," JSOT 36 (2012)
- Jopie Siebert-Hommes, "The widow of Zarephath and the great woman of Shunem : a comparative analysis of two stories," in On reading prophetic texts : gender-specific and related studies in memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (1996)
- Magnus Ottosson, "The Prophet Elijah's visit to Zarephath," in In the shelter of Elyon : essays on ancient Palestinian life and literature in honor of G W Ahlström (1984)
-
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Jerry Pepsi, the second source in the article Judaism in Late Antiquity actually comes up first on Google Books "widow" "zarephath" "rabbi" among 379 sources, why would you say that Jacob Neusner is not a scholarly source? Do you wish to revise your !vote on the basis of these sources? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is loads and loads of coverage. E.g.
- Keep. I see a problem with the nomination - the Bible is not quite on the same level as the Harry Potter novels. Per long-standing wikipedia practice, these sort of characters and events are presumed to be notable. This is because of the coverage they receive - in commentaries, in journal articles, and of course in art. The commons link has a dozen artworks. In fact, I think there should also be an article on the widow herself, since Jesus mentions her in Luke 4:26. St Anselm ( talk) 22:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to see some references that establish the notability of the character. Certainly Jesus is a heck of a shout out but The Bible is not an independent reliable source for its own content. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- See above.
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm missing how that point means this should have it's own standing article. While I'm certain one could find a myriad of people talking about almost every verse in the bible, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every verse. I could also point to WP:IINFO to back up that argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- See above.
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Invalid deletion criterion: this particular story in this particular book is notable. Numerous sources exist, as a search will show, and as StAnselm noted. The notability means that this is one of the WP:BKD exceptions (and even if it wasn't, BKD is not a deletion criterion). -- 101.119.14.67 ( talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep because the nominator's reasons make no sense. Number one, the Bible is not just "any" book and it would be absurd that every theme and article that comes out of the Bible should be "crunched" into any one article about the Bible as a "book" and the Bible has many books, all of which have articles on WP. Number two, this article is a stub and can be developed over time, but that being so it is an episode crucial to two world religions Judaism and Christianity (and it's not about "books"). Number three, the nominator seems to be taunting and degrading religion on WP, just see how he dabs "[[Book of Kings|particular book]]" above when all you see is "particular book" comparing it to Harry Potter, while it's in fact an episode in the Books of Kings that has been been around for well over 2,000 years, important not just in terms of religion and theology but also historically and culturally (and he seems to just be picking on it because it happens to have the name "Books..") -- Imagine if archaeologists had access to a book that was written much longer than 2,000 years ago describing events from about 3,000 years ago -- it would be studied in great detail and ALL it's episodes would be micro-analyzed and held in the highest regard. That is NOT like any other book and certainly NOT like Harry Potter pop pulp fiction. IZAK ( talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't assign nefarious intent to the nominator with accusations of "taunting and degrading religion". Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there Jerry Pepsi and welcome to WP. Let's take a closer look at the nominator's language in his own words: "I can think of no valid reason" -- Really? "that a particular story in a particular book" -- he hides/downplays the fact that it's the Bible's Book of Kings not some latter-day book. "should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel" -- comparing a book, ANY BOOK, from the Bible to Harry Potter is disrespectful and would be regarded as offensive and even sacrilegious by editors who are serious Judaic or Christian editors; just as no one would say or imply for example that a scientific subject is like a section in a Mickey Mouse cartoon. "As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia," -- How so? The tone is dismissive. "nor does it conform to WP:BKD" -- incorrectly citing "policies" to suit oneself in an AfD, wasting everybody's time is a violation of WP:LAWYERING at best and of WP:DONOTDISRUPT at worst. Then again, maybe the nominator needs to be reminded of WP:SPIDERMAN and leave well-enough alone. Why go out of your way to pick on not one but two important episodes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem) and tie things up here? IZAK ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Do you have any idea how many different works have been published with substantial coverage of this specific incident? Even aside from the works mentioned above by St Anselm, there are tons of more general commentaries that provide coverage; try Calvin's Commentaries, or the Keil- Delitzsch Commentaries, or Matthew Henry — and those are just the Protestants! I don't know the Catholic or Orthodox scholarship, but presumably they exist, and you'll get tons of discussion in the Talmud as well as (probably) plenty of other Jewish scholarship. Unlike Harry Potter, the Bible has indeed been micro-analyzed in all its episodes, and even if you have no interest in believing its teachings and see the original text as nothing particularly distinctive, you need to understand that the amount of biblical scholarship makes it unique from an encyclopedic perspective. Nyttend ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason given by nominator as to why this Category:Hebrew Bible events stub with 58,500 Google Book references should be merged when the New Testament articles in Category:Resurrection are considered notable for standalone, not lumped into Gospel of Luke etc. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There's definitely potential for expansion here. I'm fairly certain that over the past few millennia some reliable sources have covered this... Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Very silly nom - snow close please. Johnbod ( talk) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is a much discussed subject. However, I wonder whether it might be better to rename and repurpose as Widow of Zarephath, rather than just concentrate on this one incident. That is currently a redirect to the article under discussion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Excellent arguments to keep, but no policy arguments to delete this well-hashed-out story. May be re-named per discussions. Bearian ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath
- Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can think of no valid reason that a particular story in a particular book should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel. As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, nor does it conform to WP:BKD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - while there is no reason why a character within a particular book can't have its own article (see for example the other contents of Category:Books of Kings), there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that cover this event or the character of the widow of Zarephath with the scholarly detachment expected for articles about characters from holy texts (for believers) or collections of mythology (for us heathens). Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is loads and loads of coverage. E.g.
- Stephanie Wyatt, "Jezebel, Elijah, and the widow of Zarephath: a ménage à trois that estranges the holy and makes the holy the strange," JSOT 36 (2012)
- Jopie Siebert-Hommes, "The widow of Zarephath and the great woman of Shunem : a comparative analysis of two stories," in On reading prophetic texts : gender-specific and related studies in memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (1996)
- Magnus Ottosson, "The Prophet Elijah's visit to Zarephath," in In the shelter of Elyon : essays on ancient Palestinian life and literature in honor of G W Ahlström (1984)
-
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Jerry Pepsi, the second source in the article Judaism in Late Antiquity actually comes up first on Google Books "widow" "zarephath" "rabbi" among 379 sources, why would you say that Jacob Neusner is not a scholarly source? Do you wish to revise your !vote on the basis of these sources? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- There is loads and loads of coverage. E.g.
- Keep. I see a problem with the nomination - the Bible is not quite on the same level as the Harry Potter novels. Per long-standing wikipedia practice, these sort of characters and events are presumed to be notable. This is because of the coverage they receive - in commentaries, in journal articles, and of course in art. The commons link has a dozen artworks. In fact, I think there should also be an article on the widow herself, since Jesus mentions her in Luke 4:26. St Anselm ( talk) 22:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to see some references that establish the notability of the character. Certainly Jesus is a heck of a shout out but The Bible is not an independent reliable source for its own content. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- See above.
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm missing how that point means this should have it's own standing article. While I'm certain one could find a myriad of people talking about almost every verse in the bible, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every verse. I could also point to WP:IINFO to back up that argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- See above.
St
Anselm (
talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Invalid deletion criterion: this particular story in this particular book is notable. Numerous sources exist, as a search will show, and as StAnselm noted. The notability means that this is one of the WP:BKD exceptions (and even if it wasn't, BKD is not a deletion criterion). -- 101.119.14.67 ( talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep because the nominator's reasons make no sense. Number one, the Bible is not just "any" book and it would be absurd that every theme and article that comes out of the Bible should be "crunched" into any one article about the Bible as a "book" and the Bible has many books, all of which have articles on WP. Number two, this article is a stub and can be developed over time, but that being so it is an episode crucial to two world religions Judaism and Christianity (and it's not about "books"). Number three, the nominator seems to be taunting and degrading religion on WP, just see how he dabs "[[Book of Kings|particular book]]" above when all you see is "particular book" comparing it to Harry Potter, while it's in fact an episode in the Books of Kings that has been been around for well over 2,000 years, important not just in terms of religion and theology but also historically and culturally (and he seems to just be picking on it because it happens to have the name "Books..") -- Imagine if archaeologists had access to a book that was written much longer than 2,000 years ago describing events from about 3,000 years ago -- it would be studied in great detail and ALL it's episodes would be micro-analyzed and held in the highest regard. That is NOT like any other book and certainly NOT like Harry Potter pop pulp fiction. IZAK ( talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't assign nefarious intent to the nominator with accusations of "taunting and degrading religion". Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there Jerry Pepsi and welcome to WP. Let's take a closer look at the nominator's language in his own words: "I can think of no valid reason" -- Really? "that a particular story in a particular book" -- he hides/downplays the fact that it's the Bible's Book of Kings not some latter-day book. "should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel" -- comparing a book, ANY BOOK, from the Bible to Harry Potter is disrespectful and would be regarded as offensive and even sacrilegious by editors who are serious Judaic or Christian editors; just as no one would say or imply for example that a scientific subject is like a section in a Mickey Mouse cartoon. "As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia," -- How so? The tone is dismissive. "nor does it conform to WP:BKD" -- incorrectly citing "policies" to suit oneself in an AfD, wasting everybody's time is a violation of WP:LAWYERING at best and of WP:DONOTDISRUPT at worst. Then again, maybe the nominator needs to be reminded of WP:SPIDERMAN and leave well-enough alone. Why go out of your way to pick on not one but two important episodes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem) and tie things up here? IZAK ( talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Do you have any idea how many different works have been published with substantial coverage of this specific incident? Even aside from the works mentioned above by St Anselm, there are tons of more general commentaries that provide coverage; try Calvin's Commentaries, or the Keil- Delitzsch Commentaries, or Matthew Henry — and those are just the Protestants! I don't know the Catholic or Orthodox scholarship, but presumably they exist, and you'll get tons of discussion in the Talmud as well as (probably) plenty of other Jewish scholarship. Unlike Harry Potter, the Bible has indeed been micro-analyzed in all its episodes, and even if you have no interest in believing its teachings and see the original text as nothing particularly distinctive, you need to understand that the amount of biblical scholarship makes it unique from an encyclopedic perspective. Nyttend ( talk) 01:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason given by nominator as to why this Category:Hebrew Bible events stub with 58,500 Google Book references should be merged when the New Testament articles in Category:Resurrection are considered notable for standalone, not lumped into Gospel of Luke etc. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There's definitely potential for expansion here. I'm fairly certain that over the past few millennia some reliable sources have covered this... Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Very silly nom - snow close please. Johnbod ( talk) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is a much discussed subject. However, I wonder whether it might be better to rename and repurpose as Widow of Zarephath, rather than just concentrate on this one incident. That is currently a redirect to the article under discussion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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.