Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alad Umug Lama


 * 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. The one "keep" opinion does not address the problems identified in the "delete" opinions.  Sandstein  08:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Alad Umug Lama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this because my searches found nothing good at all with only actually visible book repeating the Encyclopedia of Gods and mostly Wiki mirrors (books and browser). There's no free view for this latter book although it seems to exist. Aside from that, there's nothing to suggest improvement or better notability and further searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister  talk  22:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (changed back from Keep) fails WP:V, searches indicate that the subject is not mentioned in the reference, and web searches don't yield a single mention anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking again the web, I see now that the entry is actually called "Alad Udug Lama" (spelled with d, not m, thus not yielding any results with the wrong spelling) see Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses by Michael Jordan (revised edition of the previously called Encyclopedia of Gods). I can't see the entry, only a snippet view. Article should be moved to the correct spelling, and then the content should be revised. Alad, Udug and Lama seem to be different entities, according to other scholarly sources. Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note I have moved the article to Alad Udug Lama. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I accept a listing in E of Gods as notability, even if there is nothing else. The book is published by the major reference publisher Facts of File, and is in over 1200 libraries, proving it a standard encycopedia on the subject. We have always accepted coverage in other encyclopedias as notability., even as the only source. ß DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jordan's work is widely available, but it's still junk scholarship, and the litany of little stubs we have cited solely to it is a longstanding embarrassment for the project's coverage of mythology. Its use has been a pet peeve of mine for some time now. For the record, the entry for this "deity" is: "Collective name of guardian deities. Mesopotamian (Sumerian and Bablyonian-Akkadian). Vague spirits who accompany major deities and dispense good fortune." But, as always, Jordan offers no sources in support of this claim. And while all three of these words legitimately referring to various forms of mythical, spiritual, or divine entities, there's no evidence whatsoever that they can be put together in this way to mean what he implies. Indeed, both major Sumerian databases, the ETCSL and the PSD, only list a handful of recorded uses of Agad. The closest any of them get to this sequence is ur gal dalad2 dlamma mu-ne-en-šum2 from Samsu-iluna and Inana (Samsu-iluna A). The provisional translation of that line, "[Inana] gave [the people] great beasts, and male and female protective deities...", is a long, long way from supporting Jordan's claims that "Alad Udug Lama" is a specific proper noun representing a collective group of fortune-dispensing spirits. But if you don't like that argument, given that this stub essentially reproduces his text in its entirety, it's also a copyvio. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Making the previous participants aware, since this has been running for awhile, and I'd hate to see this need another relist or N/C close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually discovered already that these three seem to be different entities, there were some scholarly sources with snippet views which let me gather as much. Thanks for giving a learned opinion on Jordan. Kraxler (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.