Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/But to bring a sword

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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 05:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But to bring a sword

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

i believe that there is no reason for this article if someone wants to look up bible texts they could go to bible gateway or the many online bible websites that exist there is almost no content on this article Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Completely inadequate article about notable Christian topic. Some may wonder why Jesus, who spoke of turning the other cheek, would also say that he came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. This article fails to quote any commentators as to what they think Jesus might have meant by that, but just says that the quote is "controversial ... because its meaning has many interpretations." What those interpretations are, the article doesn't say. This was apparently a once-interesting article, albeit reliant on original research (see [1]). Maybe someone familiar with the topic could rewrite the article based upon the various interpretations that religious leaders and scholars have suggested for the verse. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a thing, but as per nom, there are many better places to research this topic than Wikipedia, and its notability is unclear. Right now, it's a huge mess and it appears to have been an even bigger mess in the past. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Metropolitan90. St Anselm (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is a single passage from the bible. The notability is questionable at best let alone is there going to be a article of every religious line/quote? Merge it back with the bible page at best. ContentEditman (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Metropolitan90, but also as supported by even a quick check on gBooks which shows significant discussion of this phrase. An article in deed of improvement, what else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added interpretation from one notable commentary, and can add more. – Fayenatic London 02:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see no reason why we should not have articles giving differing views on the interpretation of biblical verses. At present this is a poor article and is correctly tagged as incomplete, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is famous and notable subject. I quickly fixed this page a little. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure what denominations consider this important. I however noticed the fair number of articles linking to this one. A random example is Edward Poppe: "On 1 May 1916 he was ordained to the priesthood. His motto was "Accendatur" in reference to Luke 12: 49". PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was mentioned here, for example. See also numerous discussions of this subject in Google books [2]. This is just poorly sourced on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 20 March 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.