Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acts of Llàtzer


 * 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   redirect to Lazarus of Bethany. History will be left intact due to substantial interest in merging. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acts of Llàtzer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No academic sources referring to such an acta via Google Books and the web in general. I also tried alternative spelling via Acts of Lazarus, nothing. Fails WP:GNG. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete ; genuine but not notable. Contrary to the nomination, there are multiple hits in Google books for "Actes de Llàtzer", e.g. in Actes del Quizè Col·loqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes by Kálmán Faluba. However, they do not amount to "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, so they do not confirm notability. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think either Redirect to Peter Pascual or possibly weak keep. There is a bibliography of research on the book (really on Pasqual) in Garcia Sempere, Marinela. Vides de sants en català conservades en manuscrits solts i en impresos anteriors a 1550. Alacant : Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2014 which gives four sources and seemingly two other names by which the manuscript is known, Vida de Llàtzer i de les seves germanes santa Marta i santa Maria Magdalena, and Història de sant Llàtzer. I'm not able to piece it all together, but in whole it seems there is something here. In particular, if I'm right that the manuscript has these two other names, perhaps there is enough to pass WP:NOR (I think the subject already passes WP:V and WP:NPOV). Smmurphy(Talk) 23:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No claim of notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Looking some more, I don't find anything substantial about the work under any title (nor is it completely clear to me if the different titles really are the same work). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect article right now doesn't satisfy notability or justify its creation. Redirect is just a possibility if some sources have been found. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to Garcia Sempere 2014, if you are curious about the sources connecting the manuscript to Pascual/Pasqual. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect -- The fact that this appears in a dictionary of medieval Catalan literature suggests that this is not OR. Nevertheless, it is not particularly notable, any more than much Pseudepigrapha literature is.  My preferred merge target would be Lazarus of Bethany, an article that already contains material on medieval traditions about him, which are as much works of fiction about the saint as this one.  I am reluctant to merge (not merely redirect) to Peter Pascual, since the work appears merely to be attributed to him.  It already appears in a list in Acts of the Apostles (genre), but that contains a list of works and is not thus an appropriate target.  The fact that it is already in that list strengthens my view.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - there are some sources for the Catalan name - both citing the work and describing it. It is quite likely there are some more offline (due to period and language). If there is an appropriate list of Catalan early works it could possibly be Merged/Redirected there.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Redirect for historical significance per Peterkingiron. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - to clarify my comment above for the closer, there are reliable sources that discuss this work, and as a short stub, it passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. There are some issues with WP:NOT, as this is little more than a bibliographical entry, but the historic significance is clear enough that and I agree with others that this subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia Smmurphy(Talk) 13:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Changing my opinion to merge and redirect to Lazarus_of_Bethany, keeping the categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:40, 6 October 2017 (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.