Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"easter" in Acts 12:4


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

&quot;easter&quot; in Acts 12:4

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article exists for the purpose of arguing a particular point of view. The factual information in the article is discussed more extensively in Easter and should be merged, as appropriate, with that article. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge per above Seb az86556 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speedily. WP:NPOV - Drew Smith What I've done 09:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I speedied it, it was removed. Speedy Delete. Dr.K. logos 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Easter, clearly it belongs there, although that didn't require AfD. The reference in the article doesn't support a separate article, and while I have no doubt that there are many sources that establish that "Easter" is loose translation in that verse, as an editorial matter there is far more benefit to this information being in listed in context of the holiday. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete it's not only a POV argument, it's completely wrong. Just because the event was derived from Passover doesn't mean the name couldn't've been derived from Ishtar.  Really, there's nothing worth merging here. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that paragraph is dubious. I was referring to passover -> pascha statements in the first paragraph, which I think is accepted by most scholars more or less as rendered here. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a notable "fringe theory." Bearian (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merege -- essentially there is little worth merging. The only worthwhile point is the "mis"translation, which I presume only comes in certain translations; if this refers to King James Version, it might be worth a passing allusion in the "early church" section.  If merging delete the resultant redirect.   Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2009 (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.