Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greco-Roman deities and their Norse counterparts


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Roman deities and their Norse counterparts
No source is mentioned, which is logical inasmuch as the value of these equivalences seems very doubtful to me, for several reasons.

The chart gives equivalences between Greek and Norse gods but:
 * there was no such “equivalences made in ancient times”, because pagan Greeks had no contact with Scandinavians, and because later Scandinavian writers of the Middle Ages had a mostly Latin, not Greek, cultural background;
 * I’m not sure these equivalences have very often been “proposed by modern scholars”, at least over the last century. Interesting comparisons can be made only between religions who both share important Indo-European features, which is not really the case of Greek paganism (cf. Georges Dumézil’s work, who hardly ever dealt with Greek myths).

A few equivalences exist though between Norse and Roman deities, made both in ancient times (cf. Tacitus) and by modern scholars (cf. Dumézil again), but they’re far from being as numerous as in this chart, and far from being as obvious too. For instance, Odin is given here as the counterpart of Zeus / Jupiter, but he’s sometimes given as the equivalent of Mercury (cf. Wednesday) or Mars.

Finally, most of these equivalences are very much questionable: for instance Gefjun / Tyche, whereas Gefjun is generally connected to Diana (sometimes Vesta), or Járnsaxa / Athena: Járnsaxa is not even a goddess, but a giantess. I could give several other examples of deities who have nothing, or hardly anything, in common.

That’s the reasons why I think the few interesting facts should be mentioned in Interpretatio romana, and the rest should be deleted. Sigo 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigo asked me to comment and as it happens I agree with him. This rather looks like original research and should be merged into interpretatio romana. That article could use some beefing up, though. For example the interpretatio romana of (early) Thor is Hercules but the interpratio germanica of Jupiter is Thor. Haukur 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment since the article does claim that ancient sources and modern ones to make the claims, I'd say we need sources for that, not just the claim. However, with just one principle contributor to the article, I'm not sure whether or not it's accurate.  Still, even I, someone who is not a follower of mythology, is aware that there's at least something to the interpretation.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I found myself drawn in and a bit fascinated by this article before I read the whole Afd, the nom's apt criticisms and realized it was uncited to boot. That's probably why original research doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dina 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, if no sources can be found. The Photon 01:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; either WP:OR or interpretatio graeca on which we already have an article. Nothing (s)mergable leaps out at me and it is an improbable phrase for a redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:44, 2 October 2006 (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.