Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultus Deorum (Modern 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 Rename (title TBD). This is an unfortunately messy discussion, with a lot of folks talking past each other. It's fairly clear there's some source material discussing the revival of roman pagan traditions. It's also clear this particular title does not have support. So the article shouldn't exist at this title, but that's not an argument to delete it (as an aside, an article title does not have to have google hits for the subject to be notable, so long as the subject has sources about it; titles are sometimes descriptive; see WP:NDESC). The AfD has run for three weeks, and there's no consensus as to the title; so I'm going to IAR a little, and close this as "rename" but with no specific title, instead requiring that the title be determined via talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Either an elaboate hoax or really non-notable neopaganism. No independent sources. Before nominating I deleted some really bizarre statements, such as they purchased a plot of land in Vorkuta. Do you know what is Vorkuta? Lembit Staan (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my amended suggestion in the "Comment for the closer below, a "soft deletion", so to say. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the source that was cited for the Vorkuta plot of land, you'll see that they really did do this, apparently for the purpose of using it as a ritual site. If there are Russian members of CD then that wouldn't be specially weird, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right. Still, (a) the ref is from a forum hence low credibility. (b) the organization name is "Roman Republic " (Res Publica Romana) and has no mention of "Cultus Deorum", with "Roman Republic" claiming about 100 people, hence thoroughly nonnotable anyway. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your hypothesis about "Russian members". I have found the Russian term for the menioned Provincia Sarmatia "subsidiary": Провинция Сарматия. They do have a vkontakte presence, but there is no info in Russian language that they have something in Vorkuta. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the funny thing. The post in question comes form "ROman Republic" while "Провинция Сарматия" itself claims it is part of Nova Roma. And here is the punchline: Nova Roma declares "Roman Republic" to be a competing organization.. In other words, all this is brain games of several dozen of kids. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The second reference links to The rise of the blockchain in the casino industry... What we have here is an elaborate hoax. Jupiter Optimus Maximus indeed! --Whiteguru (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is really a hoax, we may need to notify the Catalan, Spanish, Esperanto, Interlingua, Italian, and Portuguese wikis as well. wizzito | say hello! 07:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment, can anyone with a good understanding of Italian look through the sources on the Italian version of the page? wizzito | say hello! 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Italian source 1 - is a definition of the word 'gentilita', nothing to do with "via romana agli dei", the subject of the article. A few more? #2, the traditional Roman movement, does mention the subject (twice) as one of several names; an informed page, but the website Saturnia Tellus appears to be a primary source for the Roman "religion". #3 just defines neopaganism; Athame seems to be a magazine on that topic. #4 (in English) is about "Romuva" religion denied by the Lithuanian parliament, maybe that's a synonym? #5 is the Pagan Federation Italia, the article doesn't mention "via romana agli dei". #6 is just a footnote with a pointer to books including "The Private Cult of Ancient Rome", 2 vols, in Italian. #7 is the one word "Raucci", your guess as good as mine. #8 is a footnote about three Rs, Romanism, Renaissance, and [Italian] Revolution. #9 links a statute of Saturnia Tellus (as above). #10 is an offline ref to an article on paganism and ancient gods in a local newspaper, Corriere di Verona. #11 is to Ad Maiora Vertite, an article about a project to study the Roman Cult. #12 is a local newspaper article about an archaeological park with reenactments; it doesn't mention the "via romana". Finally #13 is a Facebook page called "Communitas Populi Romani", it says it's a religious organisation; the article says its a group of students, started in 2013, who like history and religion of ancient Rome. Much of the article concerns (other) groups interested in Roman traditions. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Spanish Wiki article has no inline citations; it cites a 1996 book in its Bibliography, in Italian, "The Traditionalist Roman Movement". It has 9 External links, 8 of them in Italian. The Spanish one is a dead link, at least it seems to have been taken over by something written in ?Chinese? ideograms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added three sources and at least the first one is definitely an RS, although it's not available online and I don't have access to it. Ffranc (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And I deleted these sources because you didnt add any info related to article subject, i.e., Cultus Deorum. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how it works. If the article is poorly sourced you add sources, and that's what I did. Ffranc (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's how it works. You expanded the article with sources and text that do not speak of the article subject, i.e., Cultus Deorum. And I reverted you addition per WP:COATRACK: you cannot fill an article with tangentially related things. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've started a separate discussion on the article's talk page. In short, the subject as it is defined in the article is pretty broad and has several names. Ffranc (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article was moved in June, and it really shouldn’t have been. A few peop,e use the cultus deorum name, it it isn’t the common name for the not-a-hoax group of new-pagans reviving Roman cultus. Roman pagan Reconstructionism is definitely a thing and is quite assuredly not a hoax. Move back to the previous title and the sources then cover the subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This would make sense. However "Roman pagan Reconstructionism"" gives no google hits. One of the old titles, "Italo-Roman neopaganism" does not give reliable sources in first several pages of google search. Which title do you have in mind? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider the best name for the article. It seems clear that
- a) this is not a hoax, there really are folks who practice elements of ancient Roman religion.
- b) We already have "Neopaganism in Latin Europe", which however also covers Celtic, Norse, and Shamanistic paganism, so isn't a synonym; and "Nova Roma" which is one instance of "Cultus Deorum" or whatever we're going to call it. Lembit Staan, "Cultus Deorum" is not the name of a single branch, but a general description for the practice of all the various groups dotted around Europe (including Russia, it seems). Deleting citations because they name particular groups is a "category error", i.e. you're mistaking the part-of relationship for "is not about the same subject", but the materials were in fact highly relevant and should be restored, probably with some introduction ("this is a list of groups who practice the Cultus Deorum in some form", for instance). You may well be correct that since many people now have no Latin, a Latin name is difficult as people will guess wrongly that CD is a label rather than a general description. Hope this is clear to you now.
- c) It does seem that the June 2021 move was a bit hasty, per Ealdgyth. That seems to me to mean a clear and definite Keep, but the choice of name needs careful discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Chiswick Chap:, Sorry, colleague, it is not established that Cultus Deorum is "a general description" of whatever you think is described. Therefore adding texts into this article based on sources which do not establish connection with "Cultus" is a plain symple case of original research. As for renaming, please see above my remark. The first and foremost solution is to find reliable sources which somehow group whatever is groupable and use the term they are using. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a little-studied but nonetheless existing new religious movement. The concept of "reconstructionism" is indeed what Lembit Staan calls "a brain game", as it has been spread from American/English-language blogs which obviously don't constitute actual religious organisations (the same problem applies to articles about other "reconstructionisms" in Wikipedia). The current version of the article has one academic source (Hans Thomas Hakl, 2009) which calls the movement "Roman-Italic Tradition", thus I think that the article should be moved to the title "Roman-Italic Tradition (new religious movement)" in conformity with other well-written articles on modern Pagan religions (e.g. the WP:FA "Heathenry (new religious movement)"). At least one organisation of the movement, Pietas (it calls the religion itself "Roman Tradition"), has been recognised as a legal entity by the state of Italy ("Italy formally recognizes Religio Romana organization", The Wild Hunt); this organisation appears to have established various temples in Italy. Another organisation has established a temple in Poltava, Ukraine (Temple of Jupiter Perennus). There is an organisation in Russia, too; it calls the religion Cultus Deorum and publishes the magazine Adoratio.--Æo (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the closer: It is established here that this current title is a result of an inept page move. On the other hand, other suggested titles are not confirmed by reliable sources and therefore we cannot verify whether this article is a WP:SYNTH/original research of wikipedians trying to group something not grouped in reliable sources. Therefore a proper descsion IMO would be is to MOVE to draft space until the article become acceptable. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, as per Lembit Staan. As we cannot rule this out as a hoax, it shouldn't stay up. For the same reason, we shouldn't flat out delete it. If someone could definitively rule it out either way, I would happily change my !vote. Ifnord (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2021 (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.