Talk:Genesis 1:3

This page was proposed for deletion by Mann jess (talk · contribs) on 3 August 2012 with the comment:
Too specific. Already covered in other articles, and therefore unnecessary.
It was contested by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) on 3 August 2012 with the comment:
there is some content that could be useful if sourced. I would have no objection to redirecting this to Genesis creation narrative like the later verses of the chapter e.g. Genesis 1:6

Merger

Failed proposal--v/r - T P 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This small page is now included in a merger proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5; the suggested target is Genesis 1:4 which is currently more substantial. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge proposal, for reasons given there. -- 202.124.75.38 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the merger because thus far Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5 have all successfully survived various AfDs and the consensus has been to keep them as separate verses, so it makes no sense to rush to overturn that WP:CONSENSUS and instead the emphasis should be on improving each of the articles about these first five verses of the Torah/Bible according to both Judaism and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:4 and Genesis 1:5 are all solid, well-referenced articles that stand alone. I see no benefit in a merger, nor is this a particularly "small page." All three articles have plenty of scope for growth, given their notability. -- 202.124.73.95 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, AfD does not bar us from performing a merge. It says nothing of the article's suitability for this proposal at all. On top of the fact, of course, that this article's AfD resulted in "no consensus", meaning the community is divided over whether we should keep the article at all. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was not a single "delete" !vote after the article reached its present form, I don't think the community is divided on keeping Genesis 1:5. Any future AfD for that article would surely go nowhere. I'm seeing a strong consensus on this page not to merge either. -- 202.124.73.33 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting consensus at AfD as something other than how it was closed is probably not a good idea. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking into account the total rewriting of the article during the course of the AfD discussion, and the strong support for its present form. -- 202.124.72.184 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Both of these articles are on topics that clearly meet our general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Each of the first 5 verses are a stand-alone unit, and this page (so far) has enough to stand alone. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fayenatic london (talk · contribs). Reasons on [[1]]. Thanks, — Jasonasosa 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment. Since the discussion has been closed and the tags removed, I'm blue-boxing this thread. -- 202.124.72.184 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If anyone wants to reopen that merge discussion, please say why. As it stands, all 4 responses were "oppose," so I think Neelix was correct to close the discussion and remove the tags. -- 202.124.75.53 (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that was the discussion above about possibly merging Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:5 into Genesis 1:4. As can be seen, there was a clear consensus in that discussion. -- 202.124.72.183 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone has gotten the AfD and merge discussions confused. -- 202.124.72.183 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further, the Afd on Genesis 1:5 closed as "no consensus" (though I think a re-nomination would lead to "keep), while the merge discussion above (closed by Neelix) closed with "don't merge." -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need to be closed. Please stop closing it. If others want to contribute, they can. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedure

The procedure for merges is at WP:MERGE. Given the disagreement about whether this should be closed, I think the procedure should be followed and someone uninvolved asked to close it. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist. ~~I note, however, that the editor agitating to reopen this didn't actually have an opinion to contribute~~. -- 202.124.75.14 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Day 1?

I note that Genesis creation narrative now takes the view that this verse is not part of Day 1 of creation. However, Hamilton and Von Rad, among others, suggest that it is. -- 202.124.73.196 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed. -- 202.124.73.28 (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]