Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abrahamic mythology
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Abrahamic religions. MBisanz talk 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abrahamic mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
At best a neologism, perhaps even a nonce term; I cannot find any publications that use the term this way and the article is full of OR and synthesis... "How Abrahamics feel?"... "Habiru religion?" What RSS ever wrote anything about that? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are ZERO sources available to discuss any such subject as "Abrahamic mythology"; this is a synthesis, fork, and an original terminology invented by wikipedia editors' research, and the article is pushing a variety of disputed POVs as if they were incontrovertible fact. If redirect, I agree with users below, it should be to Abrahamic religions. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
- Delete--I agree with nominator on the content of the article; it's unsourced material, and quite unclear. Whatever is relevant here is already treated in Abrahamic religions, which seems to be a calmer area. While I'm on the topic, I did go into the article to remove a section that seemed concerned mainly with literalist apologetics. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy move - To Biblical mythology (which redirects there anyway). It's clear this was the intention of the articles creator. I'm not sure what to make of the SYN, FORK etc claims made by Til, but cleanup discussion is for the talk page. Ben (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But didn't the article's creator intend to lump the Qur'an in with their 'mythology" label as well? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Ben (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But didn't the article's creator intend to lump the Qur'an in with their 'mythology" label as well? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Abrahamic religions. Graymornings(talk) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redir as per Graymornings, article reads like a big lump of SYNTH. ThuranX (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems like a lot of OR and smells like a neologism. Abrahamic mythology is not a term used in mainstream research in the history of religion as far as I know. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking at the ghits for this phrase and it seems like it's used quite a few times to refer to the general Abrahamic canon - i.e. the central mythos of the major Abrahamic faiths. It's distinctly possible that someone might search for it. Graymornings(talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a hard time finding a single scholarly use of the term (jstor and ATLAReligion return 0 hits), but it does seem like the term is getting some use on wikis and online discussion forums. So yes, someone might definitely search for it and a redirect to Abrahamic religions is certainly appropriate, but the current article still needs to be deleted. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking at the ghits for this phrase and it seems like it's used quite a few times to refer to the general Abrahamic canon - i.e. the central mythos of the major Abrahamic faiths. It's distinctly possible that someone might search for it. Graymornings(talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.