Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sennacherib's campaign in Judah


 * 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   merge to Sennacherib. slakr \ talk / 21:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sennacherib's campaign in Judah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is sourced with the Bible. There is not a single secondary source. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the Bible refs,I found some credible sources:
 * http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1966-1/1966-1-01.pdf
 * http://www.academia.edu/2926387/Dating_the_Sennacheribs_Campaign_to_Judah
 * --Catlemur (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note – This was a malformed AfD discussion that was removed from the AfD log a few minutes after it was created on 22 June 2014 (diff). Its creator has endorsed deletion of the article on my talk page, so republishing the discussion. As such, the discussion's time begins as of this post. NorthAmerica1000 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment to rewrite by contributors who has access to WP:RS sources. The events occured 'but' the article is currently sourced only with references to the Bible: see Notes and the events didn't occur (of course) as explained in the Bible. One of the sources provided here above by Catlemur shows there is controversy among historians regarding the dates. The article doesn't talk about this. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck your duplicate !vote above and rewrote the prefix to "comment"; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep  Merge/ Redirect to Sennacherib - Previous rationale: The article currently uses the bible as its only external source. It also claims Wikipedia articles as sources, which is a serious no-no per WP:CIRCULAR. However, there are plenty of external sources, easily found through the Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches listed above. I've gone ahead and added a religious text primary tag to the article, but WP:AfD is not cleanup. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC), updated 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with WP:AfD is not clean up but at this stage we should blank completely the article. So it doesn't change much with a deletion. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Many readers coming to this article will want to know of the biblical version, and this article gives it. Statements that "such-and-such happened" needed changing to "the Bible states that such-and-such happened", but the Bible is then a legitimate source for such contextualized statements per WP:PRIMARY. And then other accounts needed covering too. However, the present article is a POV fork of Sennacherib, which is a balanced version giving both Sennacherib's and the Bible's accounts (and also, more briefly, mentioning Herodotus and Josephus). Rather than sorting out the POV and sourcing problems of the present article (and it's dismal prose), we should just redirect to the much more balanced version there. --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note - nobody notified the article's creator. I have just done so. --Stfg (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- since there are extra-biblical sources, they should certainly be cited. However, I am not convinced that redirecting rather than merging is appropriate.  There is a well-accepted practice of having a general article with sub-articles linked by a "main" template.  Here we appear to have two sub-articles on two sieges.  I may be that Sennacherib needs some merging here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The two articles are describing the same events -- those described in II Kings 18-19 and elsewhere. Of course, if there's anything useful to merge, then by all means merge it into Sennacherib, but the Sennacherib article is too small to justify a sub-article which, to be NPOV, would need to cover all the subsections of Sennacherib. The present article is clearly a POV fork. --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since when did the Bible not become a source? Bearian (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * as far as I can see, nobody has claimed here that the Bible is not a source. But it's a primary source -- the background to that statement is in this and this TfD discussion. There are other sources, and they are covered better in the Sennacherib article of which this present one is a fork.--Stfg (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * I commented rather than voted, offering an alternative solution for the views of others. I see no objection to merge, if there is anything to merge; and possibly there is not.  The removal of Biblical references was certainly inappropriate.  My POV gives a high place to the Bible, but at worst, its historical sections are entitled to as much credence as a source as any other chronicle from the ancient world.  In its present form, it may have been compile 100-150 years after the events in question, but probably based on earlier chronicles that have not survived.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to the wholesale removal of valid primary sources, pero, I have no objection to a merge here. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sourcing needs work, but I'd be surprised if this can't survive as a standalone article. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD A10 as duplicate article and redirect to the much better sourced, better written, and more detailed Sennacherib with no prejudice against spinning that material out into its own article. SpinningSpark 20:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge, I have no doubt whatsoever that for any story in the Bible, there is reams of secondary sourcing, analysis, and scholarship concerning it. That is the sort of source we should use here, not the primary source of the Bible itself.  That said, Sennacherib is not so extensive that a breakout article is required.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 10 January 2015 (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.