This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I would've thought that relationship would be enough for a standalone article; either I'm wrong or that section is just underdeveloped (or maybe there are WP:UNDUE concerns?). --BDD (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least until the point that there's a competing article on the Biblical subject. It doesn't seem that readers will be well served by either a redirect to that underdeveloped section of the David article, or by creating a dab page that would contain only one actual article plus the redirect to the underdeveloped section.--Cúchullaint/c 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I basically came here to say the same thing; what do you think of Bathsheba? --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that readers are not well-served when the article title implies greater notoriety for its subject than is actually the case. Srnec (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I'm only comfortable with this move if David and Bathsheba becomes a redirect to Bathsheba, the article with the most description of their relationship. Otherwise, the logical conclusion of this move would be a hatnote at David#Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, which I would not support. --BDD (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.