Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebonah


 * 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 and close early. As with Almodad (cited by John Vandenberg below), merging the single citation of Lebonah into a topical list might be useful. However, consensus seems to be that, because of the intense scholarship that has been done on the Hebrew Bible, all names and places mentioned in the Bible are inherently notable and easily referenced. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lebonah

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a word-for-word copy from a dictionary, but its content is completely unsourced. It's orphaned, uncategorised, and doesn't need to be here. I'd also say that it's non-notable. Rambutan (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is typical of a number sourced from the Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). The text is in the pubic domain. It has some relevence in that it relates the biblical account to the present day geography. Often the place names in Eastons are not the current ones, which is an issue. Is it notable? Not very - its only mentioned once in the bible. Is it categorised? Yes, I've done that. Is it orphaned? No - it is linked from local places like Shiloh (Biblical). Is it unsourced? No, its from Eastons. I've changed the stub to a more specific one. Ultimately, do I care? No. Happy to go with the flow of thinking. Welsh 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The place exists, and may have been renamed. This asserts nothing in the way of notability. Nonetheless, people literally live their entire lives based upon the book this place was mentioned in, so just because I don't care if it's in here or not doesn't make it not notable to the millions of religious people around the world who have probably had month-long bible study sessions based around it.. Spazure 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Smite. One Bible mention hardly constitutes notability, and it's not going to get any larger. Clarityfiend 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has an entry in the Columbia Desk Encyclopedia, a much smaller one than ours (we're not paper). Numerous historical references discuss it, it's a real place even if location is disputed, and real places are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If its good enough for other encyclopedias, then its more than good enough for here. &mdash;Xezbeth 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nom is invalid as the content was sourced to Eastons per the Eastons tag. Also refer to the outcome of Articles for deletion/Almodad: even the most obscure biblical characters and places are studied endlessly. John Vandenberg 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep ummm, the Bible is only the most well-known and highly read book in history. And Dhartung noted Lebonah is in the much smaller Columbia Desk Encyclopedia.   Pats Sox Princess  14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, passes WP:RS. Nom is no longer valid as article has been rewritten. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To be perfectly fair, the only changes since the AFD edit are a new category and a references template. --Dhartung | Talk 18:59, 15 July 2007 (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.