Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucifracture


 * 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. Consensus is that any article on the practice should more properly be located at crurifragium and that this term, "crucifrature" is insufficiently notable for a stand-alone. Retitling is not a solution, given the current state of the article. No merge is necessary, as the best current target for the article (crucifixion) (now) includes a more verifiably sourced reference to the proper term. After deletion, I will create a redirect, as Dhartung quite properly points out that it is commonly used enough to constitute a possible search term (and it is specialized enough that someone might be searching). As a personal note, Lima, I've looked very hard for some reference to support your theory so that I could incorporate that into crucifixion also. I've failed so far. It sounds quite persuasive to me. Notes and Queries is over there. :) If it publishes, let me know, so I can use it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Crucifracture

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

This is a phrase from a passing mention in a single book; I don't see notability here, and find it hard to imagine this becoming a constructive article  Chzz  ►  03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to crucifixion. Google Books shows it in use, but always sourced to a 1965 paper, and I can find no classical uses of the term. (On the other hand, there are a handful that use the term crurifrangium.) Although it could be sourced, I just don't see this as a separate enough topic; it's just one way to terminate a crucifixion early (merciful, punitive, and merely efficient instances are all attested). --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not have access to the one original source that various derivative sources, possibly copying from one another, quote for the existence of the term in the sense given to it in the article: they all quote it in exactly the same way: Barbet P: A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Out Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, Earl of Wicklow (trans) Garden City, NY, Doubleday Image Books 1953, pp 12-18 37-147, 159-175, 187-208. Nor do I have access to Barbet's original text in French. If "crucifraction" is indeed found in the Doubleday edition, it must surely be a misprint for, at best, "crurifraction", or possibly for the technical term in Latin, "crurifragium", which I think Barbet will certainly have used. "Crucifraction" would mean "cross-breaking", while "crurifraction" would mean "leg-breaking".  For use of the term "crurifragium", see for instance the Britannica article on crucifixion and  The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ("Crurifrangium" in Dhartung's comment is a simple typographical error).  In summary, it is out of place to have an article in an encyclopedia about a word that seems to be certainly a misprint.  (Yes, I know there is an Irish heavy metal band that has taken the name "Crucifraction"; but I do not think it is at all notable.)  Lima (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What Lima says above I do not dispute. But crurifragium as a search term reveals a cornucopia of 19th century theology revolving around the implications of its use on the thieves but not Christ (or something like that). I now suspect that a fully sourced article on the correctly spelled term is possible. On the current name, however, we are at best perpetuating what Lima appropriately characterizes as a likely misprint. Since it's used by reliable sources, though, I still think it's worth retaining as a search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a NN term, or merge if necessary. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2008 (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.