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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbanes[edit]

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

Also nominating the following on the same basis:

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

A merchant mentioned once in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas. Entirely non-notable. The entire article is a block quote from that apocryphal Act. Would be WP:BIO1E except that in this instance there's no substantive proof the E ever happened. Stalwart111 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misdaeus is a King mentioned in the same text and that text only. No other sources exist to verify his reign, thus notability. Stalwart111 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable. You might also want to look at Misdaeus, created by the same editor. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - bundled. Stalwart111 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Both subjects lack significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Minor figures from obscure ancient religious writings that have not received any sustantial commentary from scholars. Fail all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Both articles were written apparently to in connection with a fringe POV fork created by the same editor that is also at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It is due to this Indian merchant Abbanes that Thomas was able to make his alledged travel to India and was able to get martyred allegedly by a Hindu Brahmin!!! If Abbanes is not significant / non-notable, then this whole bogy of St.Thomas's travel to India is not significant / non-notable. The whole fringe-story of St.Thomas's martyredom at the hands of a Hindu Brahmin in Mylapore Chennai in South India and alternatevely and more precisely in Indo-Parthia at the hands of the four soldiers of the Zoroastrian king Misdaeus all hangs on the significance of this Indian merchant Abbanes. If this article is non-notable because Abbanes is insignificant then you need to edit out all the story of St.Thomas's visit into India through this merchant Abbanes as found in the article Thomas the Apostle. St.Thomas's travel into South India, St. Thomas's travel into Brazil, Jesus's Visit into Kashmir, Adam and Eve's birth in Srilanka -all of these belong to the same category of bogous / fringe theores Jijithnr (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how it works - an account can be accurate or a text significant without every bit player or character mentioned in it being notable. "Peanuts" Burroughs held the horse that allowed John Wilkes Booth to escape after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He is probably mentioned in multiple accounts and helped facilitate one of the most famous assassinations in human history. Still not notable. The subjects at hand are mentioned once, in one text, and nothing else exists to verify their existence, let alone notability. These articles can only ever be speculative OR because we simply don't know anything about them and the single account that exists is about someone else and only makes passing mention of them. Not even close to enough to substantiate articles. But you seem to be confusing the notability of characters with the validity of the story itself. One has nothing to do with the other and that is not what is being suggested here. Stalwart111 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has encyclopedic value, highlighting the name of merchant who purchased this notable slave from Jesus. Article needs development, which is being done, right now. Rayabhari (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source added is simply an analysis of the primary source text and adds nothing more to what is available in that text. It does not provide any independent verification of the subject's existence, let alone notability. It verifies only the existence of the text which (while the content might be questioned) is not in doubt. Stalwart111 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As another editor says, "Minor figures from obscure ancient religious writings that have not received any sustantial commentary from scholars. Fail all notability guidelines." The belief by some that Thomas was a slave of Jesus is not a reason to keep this article. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, ~~but merge last paragraph of Misdaeus into Acts of Thomas~~. There simply isn't enough written on these two characters to achieve notability. However, the differences between the Acts of Thomas and mainstream Christian tradition are worth noting in the Acts of Thomas article. -- 203.171.197.26 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Acts of Thomas or Thomas the Apostle#Historical references to Thomas. The career of Thomas after the Ascension is a matter of legend, partly recorded by Christian writers over the following centuries. The two individuals, whose articles are under discussion are incidental characters in these legends. I do not think we can keep the articles, since we have nothing on them other than the references in the Acts (assuming these are correct quotations). However erasing the content completely also ought not to be an option: someone sometime will want to know the origin of a literary allusion. I do not know enough about the Acts or what differing versions of them may exist to be able to say more. I have to say that the alleged sale surprises me, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises you because the Acts of Thomas is not a (mainstream) Christian work. It doesn't form part of the Church traditions of Indian Christians, and therefore there hasn't been a huge amount written about it... certainly not about minor characters in the story. -- 202.124.89.24 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NONE of the material in these articles is backed up with reliable secondary sources, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any such sources will ever be found. There is nothing that can be saved or merged. The paragraph mentioned above is an unsourced personal opinion of the creator of the article, who has tried in vain to inject his OR and personal opinions into the suggested merge target, and thus created a content and POV fork, which has been deleted. These two articles are byproducts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. -- 202.124.89.11 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should at the very least be kept as a redirect, so should not be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is kept, these articles should still be deleted first, per WP:TNT. -- 202.124.89.11 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is a personal opinion essay that has attracted more opposition than support and , anyway, it calls for the replacement of defective articles by red links, so is inapplicable when an article is converted into a redirect. You have given no reason why the history should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Consider, for a moment, what if we applied the standards of the GNG to these articles? Even stipulating that the source material is reliable, the subjects receive a passing mention only, in a single work. That meets no notability standard we have. Ravenswing 08:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neither meets WP:GNG. Miniapolis 14:01, 1 July 2013 (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.