Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeric Prayer


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Homeric Prayer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As it stands this article is like a personal essay rather than an encyclopaedic treatment. It lacks proper sourcing and if there’s an article to be written in this topic it might be better with a clean start. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. No opinion whether a Homeric prayer article might be possible... but this isn't it in any case. Clearly OR, written as an essay. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. For starters, the subject is clearly notable - "Homeric prayer has indeed received significant scholarly attention", ""As Muellner established in his study of Homeric prayer formulae.... The article does have a reference - which seems like an academic source (all be it closed). It reads as a summary of the subject, or aspects of the subject - so I don't see this being an ESSAY. Deletion is not cleanup - article could use an expansion, in-line citations (instead of a single reference for the whole thing), and other improvements - but this is far from TNT or ESSAY zone. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, after some rootling around. Notable topic, to get that out of the way; and as far as I can see, not covered yet in related articles. Essay style isn't too bad as these things go, it's more the style of a Humanities paper, specifically of the single source (Lateiner) that was apparently used to write this. It needs more, and more explicit, sourcing but that appears to be readily available. Not in WP:NUKE territory, and looks like it could be improved in situ. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There seem to be enough academic sources on the topic, e.g., the topic can therefore be considered notable. I don't think the nominator has presented a convincing enough argument for a WP:TNT. Hzh (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since the sources above have established coverage. The article definitely requires a lot of work, but that is not a reason for an AfD. Though I am wondering why "Prayer" is capitalized. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2019 (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.