Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almodad

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 keep. Multiply-sourced so meets the standards of WP:V and WP:N. If the mergers wish to merge to List of minor Biblical figures then that is an editorial action for them to take and defend and is outwith this AfD. TerriersFan 03:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Almodad

Non-notable person, mentioned only in geneologies Od Mishehu 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article can never be longer than it is now because there is nothing more to say. I hate to say a Biblical figure is not notable - to me, they are all "notable" - but there's no need for a separate article about him. YechielMan 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Od Mishehu 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I concur with Yechiel. It is not that its not notable, it is just that it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Does not warrant it's own WP article. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or find an appropriate merge location. The Hebrew entry he:אלמודד lists an encyclopedia that includes this term as an entry, and a google books search indicates there is more that has been written about the subject.[1] John Vandenberg 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If one takes a close look at the Google Books hits, they seem to support YechielMan's conclusion above: "This article can never be longer than it is now because there is nothing more to say." (Many of them are mere quotations of the relevant passage of the Bible. And Secrets of the Lost Races, to which you provided an individual link, looks to be a major example of crackpottery.) I'm going with delete here. Changing opinion to merge into List of minor Biblical figures per Eliyak below. Deor 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep or Merge and Redirect as noted above. Bearian 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the minimum standards required by WP:OR and WP:V. It's important to remember that WP:N, as well as WP:BIO, are guidelines, and we have some leeway in exceptional cases. If we want Wikipedia to be a serious repository of cultural knowledge rather than just a collection of Star Trek and Sopranos memorabilia, we have to take into account that the farther we go back in time, the less reliable information has been preserved on average about any given figure, and we have to make allowances for that. I suggest that characters in classic works and other figures of significant cultural or historical importance should get a pass from some of the requirements that might be applicable to a biography in the internet age. Inclusion in the classic work necessarily means that core policies WP:OR and WP:V are met. I would expect, for example, that Wikipedia would include an article on every character in Homer's Iliad, Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the works of Shakespeare, every monarch of England, every Catholic saint, every element in the periodic table, and be exhasutive on a variety of other basic foundational sources of cultural information critical to the history of civilizations, even though the information on the topic may be scanty. It seems a perversion of the basic purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation and the basic understanding of what it means for an encyclopedia to contribute to human knowledge to include articles on Final Fantasy characters but not characters in the Bible on grounds that more has been written about Final Fantasy. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't object if minor Biblical figures were put in a List of Biblical characters or similar. My objection is to the idea that such figures are deletable entirely. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. In fact, there is List of minor Biblical figures (which could use a little help, btw). --Eliyak T·C 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Eliyak. Sorry, Shirahadasha, we don't give passes and should not start. One either deserves an article or they do not. Given that there are apparently no other sources than the Biblical one, and the Bible gives precious little material on the subject, merger is the best that can be expected. Sorry. JodyB _talk 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand if possible. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per Eliyak. Almodad is referenced exactly twice, both times in one of the long genealogies which the Bible as plenty of:«And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah, and Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba, And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.» Genesis 10,26-29, and almost the same at I Chronicles 1,20-23. - Nabla 17:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral after Jayvdb's additions. - Nabla 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• merge to the list of very minor Biblical characters mentioned above. I agree 100% entirely with Shirahadasha, that Wikipedia is terribly overweight in meaningless pop culture, and that WP:N is easily perverted to reinforce this on a daily basis. (Why do we need a Chongalicious article?) However, if all we are able to say about Almodad is that a 2000 year old book asserts that he was born to someone, and that book's claims can't even be verified, I can't see how he can merit his own article. Merging over to a list seems a nice middle ground solution. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I have expanded the article to indicate the number of works that have addressed this subject, mostly in bible reference material, but also more general history[2]. The larger two entries that I have found are listed in the new Further reading section, because I dont have enough time to integrate the topics presented in pieces such as [3] . John Vandenberg 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the new material. Even the most minor of biblical individuals was extensively discussed, usually by fringe religions now, but mainstream scholars in past centuries. They've probably all been used as allegorical figures. That the fundamental facts about them in a usual sense may be very sparse does npt make their possible religious significance un-notable. DGG 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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.