Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke 6:46

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 Luke 6. No objection to it being spun out into its own article if this is ever expanded, but at this point consensus seems to be delete/redirect because of the lack of content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 6:46

Luke 6:46 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This verse probably does not pass the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under GNG.

• Catchpole 1993 has over four detailed pages on it (in the context of the Q source), and references a half-dozen previous opinions, including Hahn 1963 and a bunch of Germans.
• Hudgins 2014 gives it a full page, citing several previous secondary sources including Levinsohn 2009.
• Gregory 2003 has a full paragraph.

I always find it hard to believe how much has been written about every particle of the Bible, but in this case it's more than GNG demands. FourViolas (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think we should generally have articles on individual verses - only especially significant ones (WP:NOTCOMMENTARY). Here we have a highly notable phrase ("Lord, Lord") more usually discussed in terms of the parallel verse in Matthew 7:21. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete -- I am unsure what to do with this, but plain deletion is not the right option. One answer might be to merge with the parallel verse in Matthew (where the article would need to be renamed. On the other hand if there is as such commentary as FourViolas suggests, it might be kept. However, for that a substantive article based on the works cited from GBooks and elsewhere needs to be provided. Merely quoting it does not make an encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Individual Bible verses really don't need their own articles. If there's significant discussion around the verse, perhaps an article about the subject it tackles and/or mention in an article related to the topic of the verse would be warranted. TheDracologist (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Luke 6 leaving a redirect. As can be seen from the redirects at Category:Gospel of Luke verses there are verse sections in the chapter articles. If the section grows larger, it can have its own article. See Luke 22:43–44. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unless it is notable enough to merit good secondary sources of commentary we could then expand on, this would always remain nothing more than a citation and a stub. PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but if and only if somebody actually adds the potential sources to the article. Otherwise, merge. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a
  mirror for the Holy Bible. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Luke 6. I think it is acceptable to have an article on an individual Bible verse if it has some solid content to it, e.g. a well-referenced discussion of how that particular verse has been interpreted in various commentaries, later sources, etc. But, this article doesn't have any solid content. (If someone writes some solid content on this verse, and it becomes too much for the Luke 6 article, in that case it could legitimately be spun back out into an independent article, but not before then.) SJK (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Luke 6. The verse is presented here without much context which isn't of value to the reader. Expanding on the particulars of this verse in Luke 6 with the sources identified above would probably be a good idea though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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.