Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joiakim (high priest)


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Joiakim (high priest)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article seems to be complete original research, drawing together isolated pieces of information from various biblical sources and threading them together with unsourced theories into an article that overall reads like an essay. ~ mazca  t 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure OR; trivia page Arma virumque cano (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While I'm still undecided as to whether this page should be deleted (poor formatting), I'd just like to add that a Google search does return some reasonable results. However, this article appears to be just a collection of places where Joiakim appears in scripture. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noted those when I initially ran across the article, but they're generally one-liners based on Nehemia 12:10, which basically says that Joiakim was somebody's son, and had a son himself. That's not any kind of material to be writing an encyclopedia article about - I haven't been able to find any sources that support the level of information and commentary that this article provides, which really makes it appear to be someone's original research of some bible apocrypha. ~ mazca  t 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge This is OR as it stands, and it's a minor character at that. If there were citations on a major site concerning the Bible/the Apocrypha, then I'd buy it as an article, but there just aren't any such citations given. List of minor Biblical figures is where a one- or two-line entry belongs.  (And yes, I'm still learning to remember to sign my posts...)  Tyrenon (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not a minor character. None of the high priests are, regardless of the extent of information. The article is not clearly presented, and is organized to look a little like OR, but there are sources in there. There are sufficient commentaries on Josephus over the two millennia  since he wrote to support a moree extensive article.   DGG (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. Clearly notable and article is sourced, the definitely in need of improvement. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete > notable, perhaps; sourced, definitely not. Any old fool can tell that the Bible is the obvious thing to put, but none of the citations back up the text. "May have been involved..." cannot possibly be cited from the Bible. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 21:19, 25 May 2009 (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.