Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vegoia and Egeria[edit]

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

Wikipedia already has two articles Vegoia and Egeria. The content of this seems to be a lift from those two articles, plus a generous helping of original research claiming that the two are one deity/one is the inspiration for the other. It is notable that while the creator refers to a Jean-Rene Jannot, they do not cite a single sentence to anything that Jannot has ever published. Even if the creator is Jannot, and this is their doctoral thesis, it's OR and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Jannot is a published scholar; however, that doesn't relieve the OR concerns, on which I'll comment below in posting my opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be noted that this is the work of a new editor who may need some help becoming familiar with WP policies and guidelines. The essay seems to be a content fork from the new article Vegoia; both show many many Manual of Style issues, which also need to be addressed. I see the following grounds for deletion:

Redundancy: A section can be added to Egeria and to Vegoia discussing their similarities. Readers of the encyclopedia may well find this more beneficial than a separate article.
OR: Although much of the material appears to be sourced, I see only two secondary sources, Jannot (mainly) with some reference to Dumézil, whose work has achieved the status of being an object of study in its own right. The article is framed like an exploratory comparison-contrast essay, not an encyclopedia article. The footnotes are long and discursive; sometimes this is a useful way to avoid a digression in the body copy, but here they offer unsourced arguments. It seems to be about discovering rather than presenting material. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons and ~~because it is now impossible to trace attributions, ie who wrote what, thus much of it is copyvio from 3 other articles, not deliberate, but still copyvio.~~ We could just stub it but we already have two articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As said above, this seems an editor's original comparison and contrast of primary-ish sources, or the material in two separate articles, to propose a thesis of some sort. If the topic was notable enough to be a subject of specific scholarly enquiries (plural), that might be worth a keep. Not in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Delete, but not before preserving this text on Talk:Vegoia or a linked subpage to that page. The similarities between the two goddesses should be discussed on one page or another, and mutually linked, but it seems that this relationship at the moment is one man's theory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until or unless the material's cited using secondary sources, preservation on a sub-page or user-page seems appropriate. Haploidavey (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Note There are copyvio issues here as much of this material comes from other articles and isn't attributed. I've asked User:Moonriddengirl about this and she agrees. Copying from other articles must be attributed, and that hasn't happened here. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SInce copyright violations weren't the original grounds for proposing deletion, and since these are being addressed (much of it seems to be misunderstanding and correctable), I wonder where we stand on the question of deletion. I still think this is not an independent article; the cited grounds of WP:OR#Redundant content forks also raises the question of notability. I think as a scholarly question pertaining to these figures, it's notable enough to be included in their respective articles, but not to warrant a separate article. That's where OR comes into play: the secondary sources are limited, and a certain degree of originality is required to make this a stand-alone essay, emphasis on "essay": it isn't an encyclopedia article. No one, not even the creator, has recorded a "keep" here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was proposed on the grounds of a content fork, OR and a non-notable topic. The copyvio is a side issue. Let the deletion debate run its course, see what comes out at the end. The material can be userfied (provided any copyvios are dealt with) if it is deleted and anyone wants it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (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.