Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispute about Jesus' execution method
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/tp/crucifixionforms.htm encyclopedic discussion of the shape of impalement gibbets is plainly notable. Should Wikipedia alone keep its head in the sand? This article here isn't even slightly POV, but contains just as much 'proof' that the gibbet was a ''wikt:crux immissa|crux immissa'' as it does 'proof' that the gibbet was a ''wikt:crux simplex|crux simplex''; both those analyses are presented here in an encyclopedic manner. This article is certainly ''not'' an example of , where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having '''' screamed at me), Wikipedia has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is wikt:Crux simplex|Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article at Crucifixion of Jesus discusses ''everything'' related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet; extended discussion of gibbet shape there would constitute . Both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from ''secondary sources'' (rather than JW literature), and it seems remarkably unlikely that the Wikipedia community would benefit from eliminating the majority of the topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and ''most'' of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps reinstate the former, less-ambiguous article title? I'm still unconvinced about the nominator's decision to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dispute_about_Jesus%27_execution_method&diff=next&oldid=355192378 change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("'''Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus'''"). Compare Stauros; ''that'' is the odd duck article
— User:AuthorityTam, 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CFORK||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Content forking)