Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dii Familiaris

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 merge. Petros471 13:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dii Familiaris

"Dii Familiaris" seems to be a neologism. Besides that, this article asserts that Limentinus and Forculus were an actual part of Roman mythology, which may not be true. The only ancient sources describing these two Gods are clearly biased - Tertullian (200AD), Cyprian(200AD), and later Augustine(400AD). Cyprian and Augustine, at least, use the gods to deride Roman religion, and Tertullian uses them to illustrate a point. These are not reliable sources.

The fruit of my research is at User:JayW/Forculus ref. Cardea/Carna is cited by both Ovid and Macrobius, so we can presume her existance. I doubt the others, though... Delete as neologism. JayW 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another datum: L'Emprière's has Carna/Cardinea, citing Ovid, but not Forculus, nor Limentinus, nor Dii Familiaris. Uncle G 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Lares Familiares. The Latin phrase is misspelled anyway, it should be Dii Familiares if anything, but apparently that's just a synonym [1] for a group of deities we already have articles on. As for the minor individuals like Forculus - JayW's research seems to indicate they were at least talked about in late antiquity, so I guess they deserve their articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BaseballBaby 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Fut.Perf. Dlyons493 Talk 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to fix the spelling mistake. Expand with JayW's research as a starting place. In my mind the dii familiares (where this should move to) are distinct from the lares; the lares were familial, these gods were public, though had little by way of public cultus. The Romans were fond of deifying abstractions, and seeing presiding genii over all homely pursuits; these minor gods are not much different in inspiration from Vesta or Nike/Victory. As to the unreliability of Tertullian and Augustine as attesting to their existence, I am inclined to accept them as far as they go; unlikely they could get away with making up deities. With ancient sources, you sometimes have to go with what you're given; see Amafanius. The article surely ought to point out that the only source of these gods' existence is in hostile accounts of Roman religion. To their number ought to be mentioned Crepitus (mythology) - I really need to expand that, he figures in an important passage of Flaubert - and Stercutius, who has an article on the French side at least. Crepitus may be Voltaire's invention though; Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary tended to mock the idea of gods in general. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• On third (or is this the fourth?) thought, merge this with Di indigetes. Numina might also be profitably merged there as well. The current article at di indigetes is little more than a list pointing to a whole bunch of stubs. All of these minor gods probably don't really need separate articles, and merging them might offer the possibility of categorizing them by function or domain. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:11, 7 September 2006 (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.