Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of Devastation


 * 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 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Son of Devastation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been tagged as a hoax. From the author's other contributions, I don't think it was intended to deceive, but it certainly fails WP:Verifiability. The verse in question is 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and the King James translation is "the son of perdition". Among the other main versions the most common alternative is "the son of destruction". None that I have found use "the son of devastation", and a Google search for the phrase finds only irrelevancies and (an alarming number of) WP mirrors. The book "Hebrew Bible Words and Phrases" looks promising, but it is one of those "books" made of regurgitated WP articles. In Daniel 8:25 the one who "by peace shall destroy many" is "a king of fierce countenance", and the assertion that he is the same as the "son of devastation" is unsupported OR. I considered redirecting to the existing article Son of Perdition, but in view of the complete lack of any source for this phrase, I recommend deletion. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think that this was an intentional hoax or attempt to misinform, but the result is still the same: I can't see where the specific phrase is used anywhere in relation to 2 Thessalonians. I think that this was just a case of someone mis-remembering the phrase and/or hearing someone use it in a sermon or speech where someone else used it and that person decided to come on to Wikipedia and add the phrase. It's relatively common for stuff like this to happen, especially with people assuming that they can pull one word out and substitute whatever other word that sounds similar enough to their ears (thousands of people who have translated the Bible from its original Hebrew and Greek are weeping at the idea of this), but the long and short is that this term is not used anywhere that I can find on the Internet that would come even remotely close to being a reliable source. I know that I've never heard the phrase used in any of my biblical study classes, that's for certain. Either way, this phrase is not in use anywhere that would "count" and given that it's not used anywhere I can see on the Internet, it's pretty much nothing more than a neologism that someone came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * redirect to Antichrist -- This is not a hoax, and is a literal translation of the Greek (according to a footnote in one transalation, but apart from the possible link from Daniel, this nis the only Biblical use of the term. The fuller phrase is the man of Lawlessness, the son of Destruction (KJV perdition).  This is presumably a refernece to the Antichrist.  The passage cited is quoted in that article, which states it is a reference to the Antichrist, though that title does not appear in 2 Thess. 2.  Unless someone will provide details of reputable commentators providing a differnet interpretation, which might merit retention as a separate article, I can see no purpose in having this article which can never become more than the stub it now is, without duplicating my suggested target.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication that this phrasing has any currency in biblical studies/theology. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not redirect. I would have suggested a redirect if the phrase had been quoted correctly, but it was not. "son of devastation" is not a thing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:42, 7 December 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.