Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Vedism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No compelling, policy-backed argument for the inclusion of this article has been made. Furthermore, there was no weight given to the sock creating this discussion, as valid arguments regarding the notability of this topic have been made by plenty of editors in good-standing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Vedism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Slavic Vedism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This whole sensitive article is constructed on a mere of 7 refrences out of just 5 are working. the article seems to intermingle slavic rodnovery and hindu vedic religion with out proper sources. it also indirectly trys to establish the supremacy of hindu vedism that slavic paganism was in fact a branch of vedic religion by stating that hindu idol vishnu was found in volga dating back many centuries which is entirely unsourced. the article seems to be a bunch of fringe theories. Agragora (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I originally left the comment at the talk page of the article. The article severely lacks reliable sources, most of its statement have no sources at all. Identification of rodnoveriye, which was made up by a group of Russian ultra-nationalists in the 1990s, with vedism is original research. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Informative article, needs just more research, I just added few reliable sources, so Ymblanter must think again. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You added - where? You have zero edits in the history of the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see not that you added a couple of sources, and I remain at delete. To start with, we should decide what the article can be about. If it attempts to prove that Old Slavic Religion is derivative of Vedism, this would be very difficult to do given the existing literature. If it attempts to prove that Vedism was widespread in the area which is now Russia - there are no sources which claim this. The Volga Vishnu just proves there were some trade relations. In fact, there was no Hinduism in Russian until the 1970s. It is tries to review Hindu communities in Slavic countries - well, then it should have the name of Hinduism in Russia and be recreated from scratch.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't guarantee any claim like "there was no hinduism in russia before 1970", especially when the country itself has passed from christian extremist rule, and later communists. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw may I please ask you to stop adding statements to the artcle which are not supported by sources. For example, p. 135 of "The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History" does not mention any connections between Vedism and Arkhaim, nor actually Slavs (there were no Slavs in the area until 1581, which was the year of the Yermak expedition).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that one for now. It's not presented the way it actually is, so it will need some re-writing, i will be doing. Once this dispute is over. The article will need more amounts of links, so it can attract more viewers. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one you just added is not much better, since it is in Siberia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? The leading description of article includes Siberia as a place. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slavs did not live in Siberia until the 16th century.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, attributed it for now, and added some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was opened by a known anti-hindu conflict creator of Wikipedia. And I believe that this issue must be closed already now, because it was opened by a sock puppet after all, Look Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajputbhatti/Archive#02_January_2014. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete I've removed the most conspicuously fringe material; however, it's not clear to me that anything that's left isn't derived from a primary source. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's relevant? Especially when the page was nominated by some anti-hindu sock. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've raised the issue of it being a sock creation at WP:AN - please don't respond there, let others deal with that. I've just heavily trimmed the article. Bladesmulti's edits did not have sources mentioning the subject of this article (and newspaper stories are not a substitute for proper archaeological reports, they are too likely to be inaccurate or sometimes have a spin put on them). Other sections seemed just publicity for minor organisations (if they even exist in real life), and a projected city which was self-sourced. In a proper AfD I'd either be !voting to delete or to merge with the Slavic Neopaganism which lists Slavic Vedism as an alternative name. The only other possibility would be Russian Vedism. Ah, for fun, see [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agree, The article has no more unrelated material, I commented on the AN too. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning Delete: Not much material from good RS on the subject in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources of similar information are russian, but i still added a diff source, article is relatively not too large either. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is distinguishing material that does not come from these groups' sites. If you can give specific independent citations we could evaluate them, but a simple Google is too hard to evaluate this way due to the need for translation. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Slavic vedism and neopaganism are not really related. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Please explain. According to this page and quoted sources, it is a variety of Slavic neopaganism. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slavic Vedism contains only the vedic relation, while Slavic neopaganism includes number of beliefs that are not coherent to Vedas. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference, exactly? I am certainly not an expert, however something based on the forged (?) Book of Veles seem to be a variety of modern paganism - per sources on various pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have formatted the references, adding as much information as I could find on each, moved them all to the reflist and tagged three of them as self published. Still not really seeing notability for the subject established also not seeing distinction from material mentioned in other WP articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slavic_Vedism&oldid=1138772805"