Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herotheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy Delete (G5) by Ironholds - (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Herotheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The word and concept comes up in various books, seems to be substantial enough. The article needs to go beyond just defining the term. Borock (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#DICDEF, though. And I'm not sure it's really good enough for Wiktionary. 86.178.193.2 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This theory has been advanced in multiple books that themselves have gotten significant coverage; for example, the first portion of the classic Prose Edda, a thirteenth-century book that has been heavily studied by scholars of Nordic culture. Because scholars have devoted significant attention to this book's coverage of the theory advanced in this book, the theory has received extensive coverage. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that the word seems to describe quite well parts of Snorri, and would describe 100% Saxo in the Gesta Danorum. I've read almost all of the english language literature dealing with Snorri and Saxo since it touches on my academic field.. but I've never actually heard this word used to describe them before, or heard it at all. The issue in this AfD isn't whether or not the concept is notable or the word could be useful or whether it could be applied to stuff - it's whether or not the word itself has established it's notability through coverage in secondary sources. I cannot turn up very many sources that explicitly use the word herotheism in them. None of the sources in the article currently go beyond minimal dictionary definitions, and I can't find any sources not in the article with extensive coverage. Have you run across any sources with real coverage of the word? It's a really cool word. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Euhemerus#Euhemerism, a much more common term for a concept that subsumes this one (perhaps a brief mention of this term could be introduced into the discussion there). I've seen Snorri's approach described as euhemeristic (many times) but never as herotheistic, and Google Books and Scholar searches show no such usage. I'm not seeing any sources that could be used to expand this beyond a dicdef for an apparently somewhat obsolete term. Deor (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since more than one person besides the nominator has expressed the opinion that the article should be deleted or redirected, it is irrelevant even if the nomination was not in form. Speedy keep cannot apply here. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedily deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please go actually read WP:SK. As someone other than the nominator has advanced a delete vote, this is not something that can be speedy kept. Kevin (talk)
- I have responded to this point several times now, and I see that you've contacted Warden and he has explained it also. However, the delete vote can be redacted, and the delete vote can be overridden with WP:IAR. Finally, "Procedural closure" is not affected by the delete vote in any case, as per WP:Deletion process. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded to this question several times already, a proper nomination respects the time of those who participate at an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what really seems to me to not respect the time of those who participate at an AfD? Trying to shut an AfD early because you're annoyed at the nominator even though multiple good faith users have suggested deletion based off of examining the sources available (and in some causes extensively doing so.) There's nothing in any policy or guideline page that suggests that such an action would be appropriate, and it fails the common sense test. Yes, we could IAR and do it anyway - but IAR isn't something to shout whenever you want to do something that disagrees with policy. In no way does adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy help you improve the encyclopedia. Kevin (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this why you and the nominator kept asking and asking the same questions over and over again, to find some way to take umbrage? Sorry, but I'm not going to respond in kind. Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what really seems to me to not respect the time of those who participate at an AfD? Trying to shut an AfD early because you're annoyed at the nominator even though multiple good faith users have suggested deletion based off of examining the sources available (and in some causes extensively doing so.) There's nothing in any policy or guideline page that suggests that such an action would be appropriate, and it fails the common sense test. Yes, we could IAR and do it anyway - but IAR isn't something to shout whenever you want to do something that disagrees with policy. In no way does adding an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy help you improve the encyclopedia. Kevin (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded to this question several times already, a proper nomination respects the time of those who participate at an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly would be the point of closing the debate and then immediatly re-opening a new one? We are not a bureaucracy. If the subject is notable, keep it, else delete it. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2011 (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.