Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gether

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Gether

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gether (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article, as written, has issues with WP:GNG. The topic is rather obscure (the subject "appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, and both times is only mentioned in passing in genealogical lists") and cited sources are just SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing on some genealogical lists. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. I hope participants in the discussion here can find better sources or suggest a place to merge and redirect it in the spirit of ATD (final clarification: I am AfDing it partially in an attempt to save this from deletion on pl wiki, where it was nominated, and where no good keep arguments are presented - but to be clear, right now, as I said, I am afraid this is not meeting en wiki GNG guideline, either). Can we rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the fact that the Polish wikipedia is having a discussion about this subject need not influence us. And if I'm understanding correctly, we're considering deleting this because its nominator would rather it weren't deleted at the Polish wp, which seems a strange situation. I have no strong views either way, but would be inclined to keep the article unless anyone really objects. The Hebrew bible is undoubtedly one of the most influential books ever written, with a couple of thousand years of proven enduring interest; I'd rather have stubs saying what little is to be said about its minor characters than fill WP with fancruft on minor characters in TV shows and computer games (yup, other-stuff-exists argument!). I don't know where we could redirect to. Elemimele (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Christianity. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Additional fun fact from pl.wikipedia:

"According to Arab tradition, he is the father of Thamuda, who according to the Koran is Salij's brother." de.wikipedia has the citation but lost the sentence: Samir Mourad: Islamische Geschichte – Eine analytische Einführung. Deutscher Informationsdienst über den Islam (DIdI) e. V., 2007, S. 89.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - we traditional keep articles about minor Biblical figures but a genealogy-only entry by itself is really pushing it. What makes this article keepable is the subsequent Jewish, Christian and Islamic commentary - they put sufficient meat on the bones to justify an article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The entry in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (on p. 841) speculates about various etymologies, and the author cites the views of four other scholars so there's clearly been secondary analysis of the name. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the scolarly coverage identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. The references sure add up! Also procedural keep per WP:POINT. I am taking the liberty to express both opinions alongside as their results are the same, while drawing attention to the fact that I hold both positions! gidonb (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (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.