- 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. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hierombalus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.
References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says
The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out.
That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (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.