Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem[edit]

(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 // 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Woman of Shunem - while there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are specifically about the raising, there are sources about the Woman of Shunem. Target is currently a redirect to this article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pepsi - that is a WP:RM Woman of Shunem redirects here anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus emerges that the article should be moved that is a valid AFD outcome. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you're saying Keep, but rename. FWIW The problem is that such a rename would go against normal titling practice for incidents (see WP:RM archive for [Name] to [Death of Name] moves). I discussed the title with UserSt.Anselm when working on the stub, in fact it may be his title, I can't remember. But we normally use RM for moves not AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There could easily be an article on the woman as well, but as a resurrection story, this incident has its own notability. The Bible is not quite at the same level as Harry Potter as far as coverage in secondary sources goes. St Anselm (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the article still requires independent secondary sources, Bible or no Bible. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

Gershon Hepner, "Three's a crowd in Shunem: Elisha's misconduct with the Shunamite reflects a polemic against prophetism," ZAW 122 (2010)
Yairah Amit, "A prophet tested: Elisha, the great woman of Shunem, and the story's double message," Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003)
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)
Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, "The great woman of Shunem and the man of God : a dual interpretation of 2 Kings 4:8-37," in Feminist companion to Samuel and Kings (1994)

St Anselm (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still argue that the subject would be better served by having the article be about the character in general rather than the specific action. Certainly the raising would be a prominent section within the article itself but a broader focus that included all aspects of the character would better serve readers interested in the subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About which "character in general"? The woman? The son? Elisha? -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 // 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on every individual verse likely would fragment the information too much (although there are articles about some but not all verses). That potential fracture doesn't have any particular bearing on whether this individual verse or its subject matter (or the broader subject matter of the character herself) passes notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ....there are only 6 or 7 resurrections in the Bible which means even the least famous receives 1,000s of Google Book hits, and that in the Bible raising someone from the dead is a notable standalone incident. But I'm wondering more about what prompted this editor's AfD? 23:49, 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) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't assign nefarious intent to the nominator with accusations of "taunting and degrading religion". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 widow of Zarephath) and tie things up here? IZAK (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the related Afd, 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) 02:43, 19 November 2013 (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.