Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucifracture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Crucifracture
This is a phrase from a passing mention in a single book; I don't see notability here, and find it hard to imagine this becoming a constructive article Chzz ► 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to crucifixion. Google Books shows it in use, but always sourced to a 1965 paper, and I can find no classical uses of the term. (On the other hand, there are a handful that use the term crurifrangium.) Although it could be sourced, I just don't see this as a separate enough topic; it's just one way to terminate a crucifixion early (merciful, punitive, and merely efficient instances are all attested). --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I do not have access to the one original source that various derivative sources, possibly copying from one another, quote for the existence of the term in the sense given to it in the article: they all quote it in exactly the same way: Barbet P: A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Out Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, Earl of Wicklow (trans) Garden City, NY, Doubleday Image Books 1953, pp 12-18 37-147, 159-175, 187-208. Nor do I have access to Barbet's original text in French. If "crucifraction" is indeed found in the Doubleday edition, it must surely be a misprint for, at best, "crurifraction", or possibly for the technical term in Latin, "crurifragium", which I think Barbet will certainly have used. "Crucifraction" would mean "cross-breaking", while "crurifraction" would mean "leg-breaking". For use of the term "crurifragium", see for instance the Britannica article on crucifixion and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ("Crurifrangium" in Dhartung's comment is a simple typographical error). In summary, it is out of place to have an article in an encyclopedia about a word that seems to be certainly a misprint. (Yes, I know there is an Irish heavy metal band that has taken the name "Crucifraction"; but I do not think it is at all notable.) Lima (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment What Lima says above I do not dispute. But crurifragium as a search term reveals a cornucopia of 19th century theology revolving around the implications of its use on the thieves but not Christ (or something like that). I now suspect that a fully sourced article on the correctly spelled term is possible. On the current name, however, we are at best perpetuating what Lima appropriately characterizes as a likely misprint. Since it's used by reliable sources, though, I still think it's worth retaining as a search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
