Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

It strikes me that the existance of these articles is an attempt to flood the internet (via wikipedia mirrors) with articles about the resurrection of Jesus. It comes as no surprise that it is the account of the resurrection in John that is treated in this manner and not those of Mark, Matthew, or Luke. The UCCF/IVCF has a heavy favouritism for the Gospel of John over the others.

I have seen absolutely no argument that each of these 18 articles is noteworthy in its own right, nor can I see any justification for continuing to keep the verses discussed in seperate articles. Particularly since the division into verses are an artificial construct of the mediaeval era, and have no relation to the original text, or how it was originally meant to be read. --Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments on this are at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 18:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. —Ruud 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion on these pages is the same as on the aforementioned page. --King of All the Franks 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect all --Jaranda wat's sup 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text I think, as stated there that the utility of these articles is very low, and source material belongs on wikisource. - cohesion &#9733; talk 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the Redirect All proposal for the reasons that others have put more eloquently than I could. --kingboyk 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I support a Redirect Most proposal, which allows the handful of individually notable passages to have articles and the rest to redirect to the article on the book in question, thus maintaining their search utility. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect all, or at the very least mostly all. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect sounds like a good idea. It would be more constructive if someone actually DID THAT rather than discussing it all over again. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, as above. Alex.tan 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I already stated my viewpoint at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Logophile 13:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the redirect all proposal. If what we can say about any one verse is already larger than a viable stub, then split that out. If any grow from what they are now, they can be split later. Wikisource already has several different versions of the Bible - Religious texts - so we don't need to duplicate it here. Thryduulf 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect all to the chapter. Definitely no point in leaving them separate. Stifle 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they should be retained,for reasons I explained at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew.--ragesoss 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See Don't include copies of primary sources for why copies of the verses are inapropriate on wikipedia, but apropriate on wikisource. Thryduulf 12:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect them all - each and every one. See the 200 verses of Matthew page for all the good reasons people have listed. -Parallel or Together? 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)