Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Serpent of Sumeria (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. We should not be negotiating over WP:V. -Splash talk 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Serpent of Sumeria
I nominated this a few weeks ago, and it was kept because of a lack of consensus (see first nomination and talkpage). The article has gone through superficial cleanup and some "references" have been added. The problem is that the references do not actually support the content of the article. There is no evidence that anybody at any time has believed in the existence of the mythical creature described by the article, or that it is attested in any genuine Mesopotamian sources. u p p l a n d 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The references simply do not support the article. It is currently unverified. The third reference is total deceptive - no page numbers, just a pointer to a book. In any case references to myths found in modern fictional works would not support the key contention that this was an ancient myth. The article could be true (I don't know) but unless it can be verified (and it has been given plenty time without that happening) it ought to be deleted. Please don't vote keep unless you can supply real verification - in which case, I'd vote keep too--Doc ask? 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * weak delete the word AZAG or AZAG THOTH do seem to mean something like great serpent or large snake, but thats about as far as it goes. If anyone can provide more proof I'll vote keep but for now its a weak delete. Jcuk 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Madman 20:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice article. Seems to be lots of evidence for this. For example see discussion of serpent worship in the Encyclopedia of Religion. -- JJay 03:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether there are mythological serpents, in Mesopotamia or elsewhere, but whether evidence can be found of a particular one that fits the name and description in this article. Tiamat already has an article. Let's get rid of hoaxes, unless they are notable enough in the world at large to be kept and described as such. To be clear, we need evidence of a serpent that:
 * fits the description of "a giant snake that was said to encircle the Earth, and to control various natural elements and cycles", and
 * is Mesopotamian and known by a name resembling "Great Serpent of Sumeria".
 * Anything that fits only parts of this description just doesn't count, because those creatures are all already covered elsewhere. (Shit, why didn't I just redirect this crappy hoax somewhere?) u p p l a n d 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We could redirect this to Tiamat (although it wouldn't be a great redirect) but, since I'm now sure it is a hoax, let's delete it first. The 'encyclopedia of religion' ref doesn't work for me, what I can read seems only to verify that Tiamat of Sumeria was called a 'great serpent' - add that to the Tiamat article if you want, but it does not verify this article. What is the rest of the 'lots of evidence' that JJay mentions? --Doc ask? 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * JJay can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume he just looked at the "references", each one of which appears to verify one minor part of this article (just as the Enc. of Rel. may seem to do), but none of which actually verifies the main points. My frustration comes from having to nominate an obvious hoax twice to get it deleted, and still getting "keep"-votes in the second nomination, despite two clear explanations of the problems with the article earlier in the discussion. The hassle in having to do this makes turning the next hoax I find into a bad redirect to something vaguely similar a very attractive alternative. It showcases a fundamental weakness in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is half-decent in the Natural sciences, as the Nature evaluation showed, because creating a believable hoax or adding some other crap to an existing article there is just much more difficult, but it will never get good in the Humanities unless this weakness is dealt with in some way. u p p l a n d 09:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't really see this as a hoax because there are so many different descriptions of these serpents floating around depending on the source. Maybe this is taken from The Encircled Serpent: A Study of Serpent Symbolism in All Countries and Ages. Furthermore, it would have been a great help to me if the nom had mentioned Tiamat in the nom. In any case, the encyclopedia of religion cited above says that Tiamat has seven heads. Our article on Tiamat does not mention this. Who is right and who is wrong? Since I do not intend to research the question- because I doubt there is any one answer- I will now change my vote to Abstain.


 * Delete for being unverifiable. --Apostrophe 07:58, 23 December 2005 (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.