Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahua religion


 * 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. (no prejudice against redirecting) S warm   ♠  06:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nahua religion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sourced only to blogs and I was unable to find any other secondary sources. Could be a redirect to Aztec mythology or Aztec religion. shoy (reactions) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Could not find non-blog/forum sources. This religion is in practice, however. All of the other Polytheistic Religions get there own articles separate from the ancient religions they're based on. Due to Neopaganism & Reconstructionism being having heavy European leanings, most of the attention in books are directed that way (with exception to Kemeticism, which could be argued to have gotten more focus due in part to Greek influence in Egyptian history). Some examples are Heathenism (Germanic/Norse), Hellenism (Greek), Roman, & Romuva (Lithuanian).

There are other reconstruction is religions that are poorly written upon. For example, Semitic neopaganism.

It should also be noted that the modern Nahum religion may be in hiding--or at least, remaining somewhat quiet--due to possible discrimination. Some members do cut themselves, which is frowned upon, and how many people remember Aztec religion as a human sacrificing cult? It took a very long time for Wiccan to come out "of the broom closet" due to black cat & baby sacrificing stereotypes (as well as historical persecution). Perhaps people who currently follow the Nahua are still at this stage?

Wikipedia is a place to expand on information. It is a go-to guide for people to get basic information without having to do costly Internet & book researching. I think it's time that Neopagans, Polytheistic reconstructionists, and everybody else acknowledge that these people exist. The modern practicioners of the Nahua/Aztec religion. Artheartsoul1 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Aztec religion. Since it seems that "Nahua" is synonymous with "Aztec", the title of this article is really "Aztec religion". I think a redirect would be most suitable here. There does not seem to be enough information available about this reconstructed religion to justify an independent entry. Perhaps, in the future, someone could add a section on the modern revived religion, but the information in this article is of rather poor quality and is therefore unsuitable for merging. -- Biblioworm  (talk)  21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like this article is there to legitimize the editor's site: http://nyx.meccahosting.com/~a00001f1/cuezali/practice.html. Delete it. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect - most of the search results for "Nahau religion" (with quotes) refer to an ancient meso-American religion but not necessarily precisely the same as the Aztec religion. As concepts, the ancient Nahau religion, the same religion as practices by modern Nahau people, and the "reconstructed neo-Nahau religion" are probably all encyclopedic enough to have 3 different well-referenced articles on 3 different yet similar topics (with Aztec religion being yet another article).  However, I couldn't find enough references for the latter two groups in a quick search, and until someone does find adequate references, the two latter subjects should not ahve articles written about them.  If Wikipedia were "complete" on this topic, the religion as practices half a millennium ago would be the primary topic.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:00, 25 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.