Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethem

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions are split on whether or not the subject should remain as a standalone article or merged so that discussion can continue on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethem

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

Very minor [1] and non-notable [2] character in the Book of Mormon. Note: this follows an unusual claim that WP:FICT does not apply to mythology [3]. ―AoV² 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ The article is nothing. No notability. not encyclopedic. etc. Outback the koala (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jaredites, per Phil Bridger reasoning. Outback the koala (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any person in sacred scripture of any significant religion is notable. It's not our place to decide what does or does not class as mythology. (and he is it's included in standard reference sources) DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that “significant coverage” is more than a trivial mention. The predescribed scripture only says Mr. Ethem was king of the fictional Jaredite nation for an undecided span of years, and begat a son named “Moron” [sic]. Any additional “facts” it presents would need to stem from an imagination other than Joseph Smith′s, but that′s fine if it helps you find something else to write. ―AoV² 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - significant mention applies to secondary sources. It's a primary source, and in general we have held that every individual character that is more than a name without any information at all in sacred scripture is appropriate. I would even include names on a list, but this is more than that. I do not think we have any business trying to distinguish the true authorship of what a major religion counts as scripture. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    - I could find no significant mention of Ethem, king of “Jaredites” in primary or in secondary sources, and thus no basis upon which to write more than 1–2 sentences. Perhaps redirecting to a long list would be most appropriate, as we′ve done for about half of the alleged ancestors of Jesus, the ones whose presence in religious text is similarly trivial. That said, let me know if you find any content for a proper article about this subject. ―AoV² 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proper AfD format is not being followed on this page. (Would fix it if I could, but I don't know how. Outback the koala (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―AoV² 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book has a hundred or so words about the subject and this one somewhat fewer. If this isn't kept as a separate article then mention of the subject should be made in Jaredites and Ethem redirected there. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Phil Bridger. If the scope of coverage is the concern, then keep what we've got by merging with Jaredites. If more sources become available, a fork back out might be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a figure in a major religious text, he is bound to have had some mention in outside sources. The ones provided by Phil Bridger are sufficient for a stand-alone article. Them From Space 06:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bridger. I strongly doubt that every single named character in the Old Testament/Tanakh has (or should have) his or her own specific entry, and the Book of Mormon is certainly not MORE notable than the Bible. David V Houston (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The statement "Note: this follows an unusual claim that WP:FICT does not apply to mythology" by AoV2 is remarkably disingenuous. The Book of Mormon is NOT 'mythology' it is (part of) the Scriptures of a significant and growing world religion. I, personally, may (and do) think it's fiction, but millions of believers hold it as Holy Writ, and so it must be judged by Scriptural standards, not fictional ones. David V Houston (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I don't think every religious figure, especially minor ones, are notable enough for their own article, but they should have a place somewhere. I'd say either on Jaredites or on a new list created for these characters. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but enough for a stand alone article?? Look at the content. I don't see it getting expanded on further. Outback the koala (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (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.