Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simeon bar Ezron

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 delete. The discussion indicates only one independent, non-primary source, which fails the WP:BASIC requirement for multiple such sources. RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon bar Ezron[edit]

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

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

Per PROD rationale: this is not notable: it's little more than a stub even in the specialized tertiary source provided. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1: "not notable" is not a deletion rationale. (Nor, of course, is the fact that it's a stub.) We generally keep all articles that have entries in regular encyclopedias. St Anselm (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely trivial mention in a single highly specialized tertiary source that itself solely quotes a single primary source, does not demonstrate WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the source here is just Josephus, a primary source, by proxy - there is currently not even a slither of evidence of secondary source coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we have one good source in The Jewish Encyclopedia, and the first page of Google Scholar suggests there are more. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia: Actually no - that search is just picking up individual parts of the name. Search for the exact name in quote marks and you get absolutely no hits. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "sources" in the article aren't really sources, and I'm unable to find anything through searches so it appears the subject fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no sourcing other than the brief mention in the Encyclopedia. No other scholarly sources found; unlikely to find any new ones, seeing as he died over 2000 yrs ago. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only non-primary source doesn't contain significant coverage, and GNG/BASIC require multiple such sources. Rebel of secondary importance who hasn't been written about enough to have a standalone page. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the mention in an encyclopedia does not push this across the SIGCOV threshold. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can judge this article by the same standard that you would judge a biography of a reality TV star or an athlete. This article seems like exacctly like the kind of article one would expect to find in a worthwhile encyclopedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, because the only real source here is Josephus, who is an at best unreliable primary source. The lack of any secondary analysis or writing on this extremely minor historical mention is precisely why there are no mentions of this character in most encyclopedias. If Wikipedia were to profile every minor figure in primary sources, it would be a deluge. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2022 (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.