Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasbeel

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. After two relists, we have some support for deletion, some for merging/redirection (but with different suggestions for where), and some for keeping (with a list of sources that was not responded to). Perhaps further discussion of the merge/redirect options elsewhere can produce a non-deletion solution, but at this point there is no consensus for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasbeel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability or secondary sources that make it notable. Gabe114 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Gabe114 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google search reveals only WP:CRUFTY sources. The second result is literally from Fandom... Sungodtemple (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books search shows inclusion in multiple "dictionary of angels" sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]), verify it is from the Book of Enoch (not a Christian book, Hebrew Bible pseudepigrapha....) I suggest it be added to List of angels in theology and if not kept, merged there. However, looking at a selection of entries there, there are a lot of other angel articles with similar sourcing, so I think keeping and adding the RS'es to it is preferable than merging. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable book sources identified above so that deletion is unnecessary as WP:GNG is met imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Book of Enoch is regarded by most Jews and Christians as non-canonical. Rather than having articles on individual characters mentioned in it, it would be better to have an article on each of the main sections of the book, to which an article such as this could be redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the redirect, or an outright delete. No fixed opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (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.