Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Bukura e Qiellit

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. This article can not be Merged to I Bukuri i Qiellit as that page is a redirect to another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E Bukura e Qiellit[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 subject of the article is an alleged Albanian mythological creature, which does not actually appear in Albanian folklore. The few sources that mention the subject of the article cite the works of the Albanologist Maximilian Lambertz, who does not report the female figure "E Bukura e Qiellit", but the male figure "I Bukuri i Qiellit". Βατο (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to i Bukuri i Qiellit ~~E Bukura e Dheut, which is also the parent article that Elsie refers to~~. So Elsie, Çabej and Bon are all mistaken? If so, these sources exist, so this "modern assumption" should still be documented. Is there any other source which could verify that it's an erroneous reading? It's an interesting case: If its an erroneous concept, that fact should be pointed out. But we should not do original research. But I guess a comparison between the original source (Lambertz) and those erroneously citing him would not actually be a conclusion, just a comparison, right? Daranios (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon does not report a source for her statement. So far in the sources I have not found a figure called "E Bukura e Qiellit" who "reigns over the sun and the moon". Such a tradition would have been mentioned in other sources, it seems to be a new interpretation of the original folk material provided by Lambertz. Çabej just makes the error of misspelling the phrase provided by Lambertz referring to a female figure instead of a male figure (he directly cites Lambertz when talking about those figures). This source (p. 349) expressly states that "In narrative folklore, including epics and fairy tales, "e Bukura e Qiellit" does not exist." ("Në folklorin rrëfimtar, duke përfshirë eposin dhe përrallat, nuk ekziston "e bukura e qiellit"."). – Βατο (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Βατο: That's great then. I only now realized that I Bukuri i Qiellit is already present as a part of Zojz (deity). So E Bukura e Qiellit should be briefly explained there as a modern misconception/erroneous name variant. Which still means a merge with some additional explanation to me. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been explained there that this figure has not been attested. This is a major issue with Albanian paganism as many academics make claims without facts about various mythic characters. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed above by the nominator. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ktrimi991. Lack of significant coverage to attest to its notabilty. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: So what do you think of merging the information elsewhere, as suggested in the deletion policy and WP:SIGCOV itself ("If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.")? Daranios (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a selective merger ("smerge"). Bearian (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2023 (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.