Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Umbilical Cord (2nd nomination)

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 Relics associated with Jesus#Bodily relics. Consensus based on a lack of significant coverage and an appropriate redirect target. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Umbilical Cord

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

Entirely original research and subject is not notable. Google does not show multiple independent reliable sources on the topic. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, with 'keep' votes based on some Google traffic (unreliable sources). -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Relics associated with Jesus. The sources mentioned in the 2006 debate are unreliable blogs at best. I found a few passing mentions in reliable sources, but no significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen. Article doesn't even say that it exists. Ansh6 6 6 05:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now it does say that it exists...that's a big improvement. Anyways, the section mentioned below is a good target. Ansh6 6 6 00:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a relic that is stored in St. John's Lateran. Admittedly there are few references to it but it does exist. If we are going to redirect it as it fails on a technicality (I understand why the technicality is in place) then Redirect to Relics_associated_with_Jesus#Bodily_relics where I've inserted adapted text from the article. JASpencer (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I favor this, and made Holy umbilical cord as a redirect to Relics_associated_with_Jesus#Bodily_relics. —rybec 22:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unimportant, at best little more than dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.123.252 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect (or merge) per others. I have little time for superstition related to relics, but Catholics seem to think them important, making them WP-notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Relics associated with Jesus. That contains as much information as this stand-alone article does. If somebody does find additional reliable information (its provenance, appearance, weight, the receptacle it is in, etc), there may someday be enough information for a separate article, but redirect will do for now. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (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.