Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Lost Book of the Covenant

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 of the debate was delete. – Avi 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost Book of the Covenant

Another content fork by User:TheEditrix, who has been going through the bible, creating articles on works mentioned there that are no longer extant. A "Book of the Covenant" is briefly mentioned in Exodus 24:7. We have an entry on the Covenant Code, which is probably what the author of the above passage had in mind.

No one refers to the work mentioned as the "Lost book of the covenant", and all this article contains is unreferenced speculation. Dr Zak 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Though I'm not familiar with the subject, the article seems to be original research without any sort of verification, thus delete--TBCTaLk?!? 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. speculating there was a "Book of the Covenant" different than the Covenant Code that was somehow lost to history is not supported by serious, scholarly, verified evidence that any such book ever existed and furthermore, the very name of the article appears to be a neologism.--Isotope23 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tempshill 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Covenant Code --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. Em-jay-es 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect per Isotope23. Tevildo 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When you actually read the verse in the context, you realize that it's referring to the covenant that has actually been made right there in the story. While the books referenced in the Hebrew Bible but no longer extant are an interesting subject, this flat-out isn't one of them. --KJPurscell 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect, non-notable original research. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The supposition that the Book of the Covenant mentioned in the Bible is equal to what a particular minority of people call the Covenant Code is mere speculation. There is no internal evidence that they are one and the same, and frankly, no external evidence. Calling them identical WOULD be original research; noting that the Bible mentions the Book of the Covenant is NOT original research. This article notes the possibility that they are the same, without making the speculative ASSERTION that they are the same. Ipso facto, this article deserves to stay. It fits well within the parameters of the parent article, Lost books of the Old Testament. --The Editrix 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is nothing more then another attempt by User:Dr. Zak to harass and chase away the author. This article is new and this is not rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) Delete POV False Prophet 22:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, The above statement is incorrect and misleading. Valid reasons stand behind this nomination (i.e. it is a fork and it fails WP:POV and WP:OR). The nomination stands for itself and it is nothing personal. That it has become personal is not the fault of Dr Zak. Em-jay-es 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think The Editrix ought to at least be able to finish the article before we go voting it away. Apparantely, this is all the author's speculation? Perhaps if the article were allowed to be finished sources might be added. Again, keep at least until the article is finished. Vote again if the article isn't good enough at that point. shijeru 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment what will giving the author several more weeks accomplish? WP:AGF, but if this is original research, we just have to go through another AfD in a month or so. If this is not original research, it should take no more than 20 minutes for the originator to post the sources she obtained this thesis from in the article. Just naming Book X, website Y, where this thesis has been published would help. Besides, no article is ever really "finished" in a collaborative project like this.--Isotope23 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Comment: Twenty minutes. Done. Concern responded to, no longer relevant. --The Editrix 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I have added the Template:Tl note per the talk page spamming Dr Zak has pointed out on other AFDs. It is inappropriate to spam talk pages to lobby for a keep. This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. If you can't convince a group of Wikipedians that your article is encyclopedic, then it needs to go. BigDT 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Postpone 1-2 weeks. Give the author a week or two to come up with acceptable sources for the thesis if she can, otherwise Delete per WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What is holding back for another week going to achieve? Five minutes is all it takes to insert the reference to the monograph or webpage that were the source for the article. Dr Zak 18:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, WP:WING Avi 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, specifically some sources would be good. --Guinnog 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Note on Exodus 24:7 on p. 117 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The book of the covenant (Josh 24.25-26) contains the covenant laws, and here is implicitly identified with 'the words' and 'the ordinances' (v.3)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptdecker (talk • contribs)

• Comments on Keep -- Note addition of two three authoritative sources demonstrating thesis. OR concerns above moot. More sources to come. --The Editrix 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment looking at the sources I'm still not convinced this is verified via reliable sources. I can find just as many sources (if not more) that say that JFK was assinated by the CIA... but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Furthermore one of your sources states [1] "There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text." This in no ways suggests that there is a "Book of the Covenant" that was "lost" from the bible and in fact points out there are no authoritative sources for this text. The Hackwriters site mentions this "Book of the Covenant" but never suggests it was once part of the Torah, or added to the Old Testament when it was compiled. Ditto for [2], which mentions the passage from 2 Kings but in no way sources or supports the sections of this article which are not scriptural quotes. This just repeats the first source. Unless I missed something [3] doesn't even mention the book of the covenant. This makes the whole article other than the scripture quotes, the statment "no copies are known to exist...", and the website quote "...there 'are no authoritative sources' for this attribution...." original research. I think that last statement is the most telling.--Isotope23 23:20, 6 July 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.