Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-Mark
- 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 Mark 16. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Pseudo-Mark
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Seems to be referring to Mark 16#Longer ending of Mark. I don't have access to the sources, but this is not a standard term, and appears to be used differently by different authors (Some use the term for the Gospel of Mark as a whole.[1]) The existence of a page here is more likely to confuse further. Daask (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mark 16, which is the main article for the topic. StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @StAnselm: I oppose a redirect, as this is not a common term, and its usage by authors is inconsistent. Daask (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It appears this page was created by Paul Bedson, an unreliable editor. There was a discussion about deleting a host of articles this editor created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-Abdias, which closed with no consensus on the understanding that each article would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I was unaware of this at the time I made my proposal, but believe it supports deletion. Daask (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mark 16 - the term "Psuedo Mark" does get used - but no need to duplicate the article. If there was any information on the identity of the Psuedo Mark individual, who wrote the verse not written by Mark, may be that could justify an article - but there isn't (and certainly not presented here). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- REdirect -- I would have expected this to be about a pseudigraphical work, not merely about the canonical longer ending of that gospel, whose authorship is disputed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2018 (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.