Deletion of Exodus 21:12

Comment: Strong Delete: ditto?" Sheesh. Copyvio concerns, probably mistaken in any case, are nullified by the removal of the offending material. After that, most delete votes here amount to , methinks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKE)

Comment: We don't cover "Bible-cruft" but most biblical verses probably do have good solid credible coverage - and secondary analysis - in multiple reliable sources. I don't have a strong view on covering all bible verses but a good case could be made that we should. (For instance at the risk of touching on , we have full articles on every episode of many TV series that got much less coverage in  than 2000 years of biblical analysis). Copyright doesn't seem a problem - most translations of Exodus are not copyright in the United States and even if one or two are, a single verse would not be breaching copyright (at worst fix it). The problem is that this is an appallingly poor stub (as others also said). It's a translation list with what appears to be a brief personal view. Either remove original research/unbalanced views and allow eventualism to expand the stub with analysis and balanced commentary, or delete without prejudice for now. Same net effect. As a valid article could surely be written, no real benefit to deleting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:RS)

Comment: but ''not'' for the reason the nominator cites (there are many articles based on Bible verses and chapters, so that's not the issue here). The reason this lot has to go is pretty simple, it's utter gibberish and wikt:mishmash|mish mash in violation of ; ; ; and probably  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NONSENSE||WP:MADEUP||WP:HOAX)