Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke 11:52


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Luke 11:52

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


 * Delete this is not wikisource Mayalld (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Redirect to The Gospel of Luke. If every individual verse in the Bible had an article it would be an administrative nightmare.TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Out of the Bible verses, this one isn't even that well-known anyway. Tavix (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Might be justifiable if it included commentary/criticism, but not as it stands. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A article for individual verses is excessive.  Ndenison  talk  23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with a preference for Merge/Redirect to Woes of the Pharisees. Redirects are cheap, and someone who may be searching for info on that specific verse could be redirected to the article where we are discussing the context surrounding this verse and the parallel story from Matthew. As it stands, notability isn't established by wikipedia standards. The so-far supplied "references" don't support the notability of the verse itself, but instead the pericope from which the verse is found. Hopefully Tony can agree with me that a redirect to a more specific article is better than redirecting to the main gospel article.-Andrew c [talk] 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy/Strong Redirect it is only the creator's 6th article. He probably didn't know any better. travb (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Gospel of Luke or Woes of the Pharisees. The article does not establish notability of this verse, but there is no problem with having a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This Article Is derived from the Idea of the stance on personal beliefs, and Jesus is warning us of misleading other by our own lawfulness and or lack of faith thereof. I thought this teaching made a reasonable point given many of the leaders today. I find this passage quite Audacious.Intelligentlove (talk)  05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userify and Redirect per Andrew c and Inclusionist, with no prejudice to putting it back here once it has some more encyclopedic substance to it. Just about any verse of the Bible has enough commentaries (independent RS) to merit its own article, but there's work to be done on this one. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Delete, since it'll be userfied, I don't see a need for a redirect 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect - The article has one sentence that isn't a simple statement of fact that's self-evident from the words "Luke 11:52," and that sentence ("This Scripture has challenged many theologians for It's stand against legalism's of traditional Christianity") isn't shown to be notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—no indication that this particular bible verse is notable, and what content there is look and smells like OR. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Redirect to the Woes of the Pharisees. would work for this passage  ...   As we all know, once an article has this much opposition - It can barley stand a chance of It's survival. Thank You  Intelligentlove  Intelligentlove 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable verse, and OR and POV. Empire3131 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, NO redirect. Oppose a redirect, lest every single chapter and verse suddenly get a redirect article to it. Delete as a SOAPBOX vio, and because different bibles exist, with different material at differing chapters and verses. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to and/or merge with Woes of the Pharisees. There are useful bits of trivia, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Per above arguments, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a bible study guide. This is not wikisource or a concordance. There is nothing about this verse that makes it notable above all other verses. Much that is said about the verse could be said about many verses. There is no point to userfycation, and no gain from a redirect.  Dloh  cierekim  03:54, 13 January 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.