Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asianic religions


 * 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 concerns about orginal research and synthesis are well founded. I will userfy if asked, but it will require signifcant improvement to return to mainspace. I hope that it does, as we certainly could use better coverage of these topics. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Asianic religions

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

'Asianic religions' is not a commonly used term - I can find only find 3 references to it on Google books, the most recent being 1987, and those don't seem to match the use here. I get 3 hits relating to Star Wars, etc. The one source being used describes itself as an 'occult library'. Basically OR. dougweller (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Search did not find hits with similar content. It looks like WP:OR. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 11:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. We probably need an article about Hittite religion to accompany our weak stub on Hittite mythology.  Generally, Luwian and Palaic culture is not strongly differentiated from Hittite in most of the material I have seen.  At least some of the information on PIE deity names looks semi-plausible to me, although this article seems to be working towards some other agenda.  But I am not convinced that there is enough worth saving here.  The page might, like Asian religions, be a plausible redirect candidate for Religion in Asia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, in the early Roman Empire there was still a province called "Asia", though later the term "Anatolia" became more in vogue.0XQ (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [comment by author] More usually, one sees the phrase "Asianic languages", as, e.g. at http://www.uclouvain.be/en-cours-2007-glor2772.html and http://archives.conlang.info/che/doelju/bhalchorwhian.html ; the term is listed as obsolete ("what were once called "Asianic languages"") at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/library/ane/digest/2000/v2000.n010


 * Keep The objection to the article seems to be based on its title. But if there is a more appropriate title it can be renamed. I don't see a good argument, however, against the substance of this new article that hasn't even been allowed to develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to give time for the article to be developed. But unless it's rewritten I don't see what there is to save. As best I can tell it doesn't discuss Asianic religions (leaving aside for the moment whether this is a good subject title). The intro gives some kind of deinition and then there are long lists of words giving various translations(?) and definitions. This article doesn't seem to comport with Wikipedia's standards so I'm unsure what to make of it. Maybe its author can explain? It almost seems to border on nonsense... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[author] This article is in a style similar to that of Hittite religion -- a list of Anatolian deities and their main features (meaning of names). It does, however, add some cognate terms (names of deities, etc.) from related (Indo-European) religions, to provide some familiar reference-points. Also, it brings the area-study down to a later date, by showing how the transition into Christianity was made by transforming pre-Christian deities into characteristics of Christian ones; which may be helpful to indicate relevance of ancient Anatolian religion to the present-day religious world. (Altogether too many historical studies are written of obsolete beliefs and trends, without any attempt to connect them with surviving ones.)0XQ (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable topic but the article needs to be improved so ordinary people can understand what it is talking about. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Exactly what makes this a notable topic according to Wikipedia standards? dougweller (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --Lambiam 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On the article's talk page it's creator wrote "Are requests for deletion possibly objections to the comparative approach, using etymologies and a diachronic framework (including development from the era of cuneiform texts into the onset of Christianity)? Do some editors habitually deem this approach methodologically objectionable? If so, such objection would be more a concern for taste in literary style, than anything more substantive, that may be raising objections." dougweller (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article's author has written a new introduction that deserves consideration. I think similar explanations of the other sections would also be helpful, and additional references for the new intros assertions (unless they are common knowledge?) would also be helpful. Given evidence that the article can be improved I lean towards a keep.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The new introduction does not mitigate my strong impression that the article is largely original research, presenting a novel combination and synthesis, albeit drawing on by themselves sourceable elements. --Lambiam 18:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 19:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the unreferenced tag, but the references are still a mess, and include a couple of general works that don't bear on this specific topic in any meaningful way. The article very much needs a "so what?" statement somewhere, like, oh, the lead, which sets the context for the rest of the article.  As is, it's in pretty bad shape and should probably be Userifyed so that a comprehensible article can be constructed. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Apart from any OR issues, it would appear that the article fails the criteria of the General notability guideline: the topic Asianic religions does not have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Lambiam 08:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Anatolian religion", which seems to be notable.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply For what reason? What would be accomplished by this? The article seems to be clearly OR, please explain because as it stands this article is fully worthy of deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done a quick cleanup of the article. Read it, and see if you think there is a nugget of information worth keeping.--Editor2020 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there have been changes in the article since it was first nominated, I'm going to relist to get more input on its current version. - Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have no problems with a comparative approach, diachronically, synchronically, or monochronically. But I have a serious problem with, well, not understanding what this article is about. For instance, what does a statement like "The Ĥattic name for the Moon-god..." have to do with Asianic religion? That's what the article should explain, and it does not--because it is written in what I'll call a non-standard style. And this style is not a literary style, it's simply not very good English. It's incoherent. It's grammatically challenged. I mean, if the terms 'Hattic' and 'Marcionite' simply pop in without any kind of explanation of what they have to do with these Asianic religions, then what is a reader to make of this? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I also have no problem with such an approach, but I have little confidence in the quality of the article. Not just with respect to understandabilty, but at least equally important, I have the impression that the degree of synthesis here amounts to OR. I'd like to see sufficient references to establish that the generalizations here are in fact the academic consensus. DGG (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that this article represents a coherent single topic.  It doesn't provide sufficient context to really judge the quality of the contents, and jumps between facts (apparently) about pre-Christian Anatolian religion and Anatolian elements of early Christianity.  I don't see the current article developing into anything.  Useful factoids can be incorporated into whatever articles on early Christianity or pre-Hellenic religion are appropriate, if sufficient information for creating a whole article about pre-Christian Anatolian religion, one can be created at that time.  --Clay Collier (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (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.