Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 5

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 delete. Will redirect Genesis 5 to Genesis; it doesn't make sense otherwise. All the info here is already in Genealogies of Genesis. Mangojuice^talk 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis 5

Pretty cool theory, even plausible, but original research. NawlinWiki 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the lengths some people will go to to support their delusional prehistoric beliefs. Doesn't this now reduce the age of the earth to what, about 4,500 years now? — Dunc|☺ 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• This page is about the numbers in Genesis 5, not the creation myth. My Genesis 5 page is based on Chapter 7 in "Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic" by Robert M. Best, published in 1999. Greensburger 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have looked at the Amazon summary of the Robert Best book, [1], and it seems like this may not be original research after all. If so, the article needs to be edited to make clear (at the beginning!) that this is reporting on someone else's theory. (No comment at this point on whether the theory is notable or not.) Also, the title of the article should be changed to make clear that the article is about Best's theory, not about Genesis 5 itself. NawlinWiki 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• We already have Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, Young_earth_creationists#The_Teaching_of_Genesis, and Genealogies of Genesis. Uncle G 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Response I added the line you suggested at the beginning. Regarding the title, if you change the title to "Genesis 5 (mistranslation theory)" I would have no problem with that. I don't know how to do it without cutting and pasting to a new title. Is that what you want me to do? Greensburger 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move, Clean and KeepAgreed. I don't think it's OR (I might be mistaken), no matter how absurd I think the theories are. It needs a damn good clean, and needs to be made understandable by the layman, and a page move as per Greensburger, but seems alrightish to me HawkerTyphoon 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Young Earth creationism. There are so many variations in the theories, some major, some minor, that I don't think it makes sense to create separate articles for the variations. They should be consolidated in one place, and will be easier to find there. This one doesn't look sufficiently notable as distinct from the others. Fan-1967 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• This Genesis 5 page is a textual criticism of mistakes (ancient mistakes) in chapter 5 of Genesis and has nothing to do with YEC.
  • Then why are you not contributing to Genealogies of Genesis, which discusses exactly that, instead of creating a single-sourced single-view fork in a new article? Uncle G 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure what to say about this. Outright deletion seems too extreme a solution, as the topic of the ages of people mentioned in the Bible is something that has received verifiable treatment, and is a notable topic for younge earth creationists, many evolutionists and Bible scholars. If the article represents the particular views of certain researchers, this ought to be acknowledged in the text. Perhaps some of the content ought to be merged into Genesis or Young earth creationism or Age of the earth, provided such content is properly referenced and incorporated in a relevant way. In any case, the content should not be retained under the present article title. Rohirok 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR, per nom. First sentence of article is, "This page is a commentary on..." Wikipedia is not a soapboax; Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. Don't write commentaries; write verifiably sourced articles on notable subjects. A page of commentary on one chapter of one book in order to express a particular point-of-view in an argument is not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as a new section in Genealogies of Genesis per Uncle G. (I'm the nominator but I haven't exactly voted yet, so this is my vote after reviewing the comments.) NawlinWiki 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Response I'm trying an experiment. I just added my Genesis 5 material to Genealogies of Genesis to see if there is any hostle reaction from the YECs. If there is none, I will delete most of the material from Genesis 5 but retain a short orientation paragraph and a few lines of See Alsos to Sumerian king list, sign-value notation, place-value notation, Atrahasis, and other pages that provide a background on ancient numbers and the flood myth. If somebody deletes the new material from Genealogies of Genesis, then the Genesis 5 page should remain, to avoid an editing war. Greensburger 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• In response to Scorpiondollprincess who wants facts, it is a fact that people do not live to be 969 years and father children when they are more than a century old. It is also a fact that people do father children in their late teens and early twenties and live to be 36, 75, and 93. It is also a fact there was a river flood in southern Iraq around 2900 BC that interrupted the Jemdet Nasr period in ancient Sumer and resulted in a series of flood myths including Atrahasis, Gilgamesh flood myth, Ziusudra, and Noah. It is also a fact that when people wrote numbers in clay about that time, they used a variety of incompatable number systems that resulted in confusion and mistranslation. Greensburger 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough to merge. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Scorpiondollprincess. Dionyseus 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no need to merge. A page should stay to avoid an edit war? Makes as much sense as the article, I suppose. Oh, and Dunc's comment is valid -- at least for those who insist on basing the age of the earth on a book written between 2500 and 2800 years ago (fortunately, the earth and the universe have resisted the temptation to cooperate.) •Jim62sch• 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Response I have minimized the Genesis 5 page to one table that reports the numbers as they appear in 3 ancient sources. I cited the scholarly book from which I got the numbers. Greensburger 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page is not the original page that prompted an OR accusation. It is now simply a table of numbers from the scholarly text cited. Greensburger 23:52, 8 August 2006 (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.