Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Primordial Tradition (2nd 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 was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Primordial Tradition
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There are some serious issues with this article. It's hardly clear from the article what it is really about. The majority of the statements in the article lack references, and have been so for years. There is no way to verify those claims. In fact, Tradition (perennialism) and the Primordial Tradition are in a sense one and the same thing, developed by the same individuals belonging to the Traditionalist School (perennialism). Although a separate page on the Primordial Tradition may satisfy the requirements for notability, I don't believe we need one, not at least in its current state, given we already have two entries on Traditionalism—one on the school itself and the other on the term. Those articles are well sourced. The Primordial Tradition is well covered in the page on Tradition, with references to scholarly sources, which can be further enriched. As for the content of this article, I don't think there is anything worth keeping. The best option for now, in my opinion, is a redirect to Tradition (perennialism). Mosesheron (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Mosesheron (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: No additional discussion since first relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The whole piece is based on original research. There are three references though, but none of them support the assertions made in the article. Allow me to analyze each of the references. As for ref 1 (Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, 1995), the source reads: "Subsequently, the prisca theologia of the Middle Ages underwent a transformation and became known as the philosophia occulta and the philosophia perennis. These terms were not interchangeable, but were each used to designate a relatively autonomous nebula in the mental universe of the time, one which was detached from theology per se. The historical or mythical representatives of the philosophia perennis were thought to constitute links in a chain, and among themone finds names like Moses, Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, the Sibyla, Pythagoras and Plato. At this point, give or take a few nuances, the philosophia perennis has become what today is usually called Tradition." (Page 50-51, cited pages in the article) It doesn't talk about the Primordial Tradition, but Tradition itself. There has been a clear confusion between those two terms. Moreover, there's no mention of the Primordial Tradition in the entire article as a "school of religious philosophy". The only place in the cited paper that briefly discusses the Primordial Tradition is on page 62. The paper goes on to say: "It reaches its zenith when proponents of traditionalism, known as "perennialists", begin to postulate and to teach the existence of a "primordial Tradition," overarching or underlying all other religious and esoteric traditions of humanity."  Clearly, the paper discusses, albeit briefly, about the topic as an idea, attributing it to the Traditionalists, not as a school of thought. For ref 2 (Re Antoine Faivre and Karen-Claire Voss, 1995), it is sufficient to say that the cited page, and as a matter of fact, the entire paper, has nothing to say about the concept's reception by practitioners and the academic community. Ref 3 is the name of a book, with contributions from the members of the Traditionalists school. No page no is mentioned, and it is unclear what can be made out of that. The rest of the article is unreferenced, anyway. I have nothing to say about that. Thank you.Mosesheron (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a strange article that appears to have started life as a copyvio of something that no longer exists. I don’t know enough about the subject to judge whether there is genuinely an encyclopedic topic here or not, but if we have an article that fails verification we should not keep it. Waiting for someone to improve it clearly hasn’t worked so if there is a plausible topic here then I think TNT and a fresh start would be best. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to Mosesheron's excellent breakdown of the sourcing and overall content, this page seems worse off than the section at Tradition (perennialism). There doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here since it's all unverified and seems like WP:OR. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above and OMG, what a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2023 (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.