Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josheb-Basshebeth

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 King David's Warriors#The Three. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josheb-Basshebeth

I prodded it, but I believe it should be deleted (Do not want to CSD) It has no sources, it's hardly encyclopedic, and has little content. (I used a prod, because I was unsure if the author would improve it.) SparksBoy (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why PROD and AfD at the same time? The article is factually correct and I've added a ref. I don't know that it can be expanded beyond a stub, so a Redirect to King David's Warriors#The Three might be a good option until someone can expand it. I've removed the PROD as there's no point in keeping that open when the article is at AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Spaceman7Spiff. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess I wasn't clear, I said might be a good option, I didn't recommend it as the best course of action, because, quite honestly I have no clue about Biblical characters/aspects etc. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable person in 1000 BC.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Aren't people mentioned in religious scriptures considered notable enough at least to have a blue link? As is, not really enough information for a standalone article, so merging to The Three sounds like the best plan; but if we don't merge, we should keep it as a redirect to that page. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King David's Warriors#The Three. Edward321 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King David's Warriors#The Three as Nyttend above - this will never be more than a stub. Springnuts (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as last two. The article is tagged as a stub, but it is not: there is no information surviving by which to expand it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2009 (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.