Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zechariah Seal

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zechariah Seal[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)

There is no evidence that the subject of this article is notable: a search for "zechariah seal" brings up nothing but false positives and wiki mirrors, and a search for "ben hayim seal" (the article's previous name before a cut-and-paste move) brings up only 2 hits. The article does use 8 citations, but 7 of these support tangential statements like "here's what chazak ve'ematz means" and "the date palm is a traditional Jewish symbol"; the last cite is a link to the website of the guy who created the design. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating discussion page on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing but Wikipedia mirrors comes up. Can an admin throw this into Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since it somehow survived for 3+ years? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed that it was an ancient seal discovered in an archaeological dig, but it's actually a design of recent origin with no measure of notability. This doesn't appear to be a hoax but it still doesn't merit an article. Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. None of the sources even mention "Zekhariah Seal"; the references only refer to distinct elements of the seal, but not to the seal itself. Also, all the images were created by the page creator. An elaborate hoax IMO. Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might not be a hoax (certainly the article creator seems to be using the seal in the article), however it definitely isn't close to meeting GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article appears to be completely lacking in notability. It is probably just the creator of the page's family seal and he or she probably just created this article for promotional purposes. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced it's a hoax, per se. Someone just writing down their family lore could, in all honesty, produce a page that lacks all evidence of notability and is full of unverifiable information. Absent any positive evidence of deliberate deception, I'm reluctant to throw the "hoax" accusation around; but I don't see any reason to keep the page, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing, I searched several combinations of key works. fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per prev. comments and nom even though it seems somewhat notable. No prejudice against a redirect to the Judaism or to create this section there and merge to it. Redditaddict6 9 15:51, 17 August 2018 (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.