Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daughter of Aaron


 * 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 redirect to Bat-Kohen. Merging of any material is at editorial discretion. Deor (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Daughter of Aaron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A request for sources has been there since 2007 and the page has not been improved since Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Bat-Kohen. The term is used to describe female Aaronites and the term Bat-Kohen is used to describe the daughters of Kohens/Aaronites. Since the term Aaronite was used to describe the priestly tribe in general (Kohen), this would be a reasonable redirect to Bat-Kohen. However we would have to have a specific section to show how the term "daughter of Aaron" is used in the New Testament, as the usage is somewhat slightly different. This is probably because the Gospel of Luke (one area where the term was used) is believed to have been written by a Gentile or a Hellenized Jew writing to Gentiles in general, as you don't see a lot of specifically Jewish terms used in the book. (That's grossly oversimplifying things.) Bat-Kohens are considered to be daughters of Aaron, but not all DoA are specifically daughters of priests, so we'd need to be able to clarify this somewhat. Long story short, we can merge this into the main article for Bat-Kohen since that'd be most appropriate, but it'd be a good idea to create a sub section as to how the term is used in the New Testament. I'll try to find more, but if anyone can find enough sources to merit its own article, it'd probably be easier to have the pages separate and then make a mention on both pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tokyogirl79, there is no reason for the merge, each article can work in its own religious sphere, with that end in mind I have placed WP:HATNOTES at the top of each article explaining  how each notion works in the two different religions of Judaism and Christianity. It is usually not a good idea to run to mix Christian New Testament notions into Judaism-related articles, and vice versa, otherwise every article about Christianity becomes mixed up with Judaism that could become a cross-referencing nightmare that in the end looks like one huge violation of WP:NOR. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect (but do not merge) to Bat-Kohen: per Tokyogirl, though I disagree for merging. After Tokyogirl's cleanup, there really is nothing left to merge; the use of "daughter of Aaron" (or, more correctly, and as it actually appears in the sources: "of the daughters of Aaron") in the New Testament is not remarkable; it is the female version of one of the standard Biblical names for a Kohen: "of the sons of Aaron"—unless someone can show that, in Christian sources, there is some special significance in this epithet being given for John the Baptist's mother. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 17:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Bat-Kohen There may be some content worth merging, but there seems little difference between the purpose of the two articles and the merge into Bat-Kohen will provide greater context. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Oppose merge or redirect Bat-Kohen is a old-testament term, while Daughter of Aharon is a new-testament term. These two should not be merged. This is more fit for WikiDictionary, but as an article should simply be deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of Christian theology it is a valid Christianity-stub and it cites two excellent WP:V WP:RS. There is definitely room for growth and no need to disregard it because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is advocating it being deleted because they don't like it. On my end it's just that there aren't a whole lot of sources to show any in-depth coverage of the term apart from how the term "Aaronite" is used. Its usage in the NT is somewhat different and we'd need to have more than just the two current sources to really show a depth of coverage of the term. Most of what I found was along the lines of the typical worship website that we can't use as a RS- a common problem with terminology of any religion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tokyogirl79, so let me understand what you are saying, that since this stub lacks more information at this time (even though it does have good enough refs), you think it should be dumped into an article that is part of another religion and is used quite differently in that religion? What kind of "solution" is that? Why pick on this term that is after all used in Christianity, and why the rush after it's been around so long to shove it into an article relating to Judaism , isn't that intellectually dishonest, unencyclopedic, and a cop-out as well as veering into violating WP:NOR? IZAK (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing against a single article that contains both Jewish and Christian views on the subject. Articles like that already exist and are usually classified in (a child category of) Category:Judaism, Category:Christianity and Category:Christianity and Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IZAK, what do you mean by "keep as part of Christian theology"? You mean to merge it into that article? Debresser (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly it's just that I couldn't find a depth of coverage. I had to look pretty hard to find both of those sources and they're not exactly the most solid I could find. This source has it listed under Aaronites and this one is a fairly brief mention. Neither are very in-depth and could be considered as trivial in scope. We need more coverage in reliable sources before I could really say that this should be kept separate. If you can find it then I'd have no problem with keeping the article and having a hatnote at the top. It's just that we need to find at least something that focuses on the term specifically. It's not us picking on the term, just that we don't have a lot of coverage for it in places we could say was reliable. It's a shame and maybe due to the fact that so many scholars have been focused on a patriarchal perspective of Christianity for the longest time, but we can't help that at this point in time. Hopefully someone will make more RS about the term and/or hopefully there are RS out there that just haven't hit the Internet. Until we have those sources, there's not a whole lot we can do. And like Marcocapelle said, we do have articles that encompass terminology and topics that encompass multiple religions, especially since Christianity came out of Judaism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:CHEAP, or if needed, merge, to Bat-Kohen. I don't see how there is much diffeence, and we have a better article that is properly sourced already existing apart from this fork.  I am somewhat familiar with Christian theology, and other than one passing reference in the Gospels, and another in the Protoevangelium of James, I don't see how any of this is relevant or material to anything else. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not keep -- This is no more than a dictionary definition. No objection to redirect; it certainly should not have an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (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.