Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon's Eye (symbol)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Eye (symbol)[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)

The two mentions in the old books are short encyclopedia pieces of dubious quality. SPLC doesn't appear to mention it, only shows photos. Only ref of any substance is the LA times article, and as it's part of a sort of list, I don't think it's enough to establish notability for this symbol. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 07:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is SPLC? The SPLC disambiguation page doesn't seem to have anything relevant.~~ SpinningSpark 23:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this is not good as a standalone article, but the information is fulfilling Wikipedia's mission. Ideally, this should be merged to an overview article, but no suitable article seems to exist. So either keep as is until Ancient Germanic symbols, or similar article, is created and mark it for merging, or else repurpose to the more notable topic and mark it as needing expansion. Either way, I am at WP:PRESERVE on this one. SpinningSpark 13:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The page isn't high quality, the information isn't sourced or is sourced to shifty-looking books like those symbol ones. I'm not sure this is worth keeping.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:GNG is not met. However, the LA Times source, though not sufficient for notability, provides some reliable information about the symbol. How about a redirect to Identity Evropa, which is the only verified usage of the symbol we have? BenKuykendall (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects [1] has nothing to do with Identity Evropa. There is entry for it and an early edition featured it prominently on the cover. I also doubt that the majority of people using it as a talisman (pendant, tattoo etc) are members. The description here for instance (not a usable RS) sounds more new-age hippy than extreme right racist to me. SpinningSpark 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, it's not exclusively an Identity Evropa thing. I think we should probably just delete it, maybe integrating the LA times information into Identity Evropa's page.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 19:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow diamond, why are books on symbols "shifty-looking" (I meant to ask you that earlier). That's just where we should be looking for information on symbols. SpinningSpark 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - Koch's book in particular, whose second edition is from 1955, did look like some sort of suspicious pseudo-Germanic kind of new age thing. More importantly, it was a trivial mention, just an image with a caption in a long list. The other might be okay, actually, although the information cited to it seems dubious to me personally. I'd still argue that it's a trivial mention,as it's an entry in what's basically an encyclopedia of symbols.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 3 December 2018 (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.