Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:40, 3 December 2024

Sumarr and Vetr

[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)

Article cites five sources. Four of them are just different translations of the Edda (the primary source work that the two beings come from), which the article SYNTHs together into a loose historiography. The fifth is a dictionary that the article uses to translate the article title to "Summer and Winter". I can't access foreign-language sources, but I don't see anything that could reasonably count as SIGCOV in a secondary independent source, so... seems like a GNG fail to me as written. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. First of all, this article discusses two items, the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, which are themselves compilations of earlier traditional works. They are not at all the same sources. The dictionary, Orchard's, is a handbook, not a list of words and definitions. There's nothing even approaching WP:SYNTH on this article. Second, as with just about anything in the eddic corpus, there's a mountain of secondary and tertiary discussion about these figures. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging regulars in this area to comment, @Yngvadottir:, @Berig:, @Alarichall:, @Haukurth:, @Ingwina:, @Obenritter:. Feel free to ping others. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what you're saying is that the article is various recaps of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, cited to various translations of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda. There's only one sentence that isn't just story summary, at the bottom of the Poetic Edda section. Doesn't sound like "a mountain of secondary or tertiary discussion" to me. Are there any secondary sources that meaningfully discuss Sumarr and Vetr at length? If there are, I would love for the article to be expanded with useful content. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. We have a section discussing the historic record and then its scholastic reception, which is typical for accurate presentation of the Old Norse myth record, like in the handbooks of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow. This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is pure primary source analysis. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is WP:OR and this article does not contain a single sentence of WP:OR. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seasons in the Literatures of the Medieval North, p. 39-42 seems to have quite a bit to say on those. Forecast - A Diary of the Lost Seasons, p. 79, is much shorter but seems non-trivial with its observation that Old Norse only recognized two seasons, sumarr and vetr, associated with life and death. Die Symbolik der Himmelsrichtungen, Jahreszeiten und Jahresfeste, p. 136, 155, has pretty similar content than both and falls inbetween lengthwise. With the limited preview there I don't quite get where the extended quotations(?) on the subject come from, though. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mythology|list of Mythology-related deletion discussions]]. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 07:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
-*'''No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this'''. This is just embarrassing. First of all, this article discusses two items, the ''Prose Edda'' and the ''Poetic Edda'', which are themselves compilations of earlier traditional works. They are not at all the same sources. The dictionary, Orchard's, is a handbook, not a list of words and definitions. There's nothing even approaching [[WP:SYNTH]] on this article. Second, as with just about anything in the eddic corpus, there's a mountain of secondary and tertiary discussion about these figures. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+*'''No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this'''. This is just obnoxious. First of all, this article discusses two items, the ''Prose Edda'' and the ''Poetic Edda'', which are themselves compilations of earlier traditional works. They are not at all the same sources. The dictionary, Orchard's, is a handbook, not a list of words and definitions. There's nothing even approaching [[WP:SYNTH]] on this article. Second, as with just about anything in the eddic corpus, there's a mountain of secondary and tertiary discussion about these figures. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
 ::Pinging regulars in this area to comment, {{ping|Yngvadottir}}, {{ping|Berig}}, {{ping|Alarichall}}, {{ping|Haukurth}}, {{ping|Ingwina}}, {{ping|Obenritter}}. Feel free to ping others. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 *:Okay, so what you're saying is that the article is various recaps of the ''Poetic Edda'' and ''Prose Edda'', cited to various translations of the ''Poetic Edda'' and ''Prose Edda''. There's only one sentence that isn't just story summary, at the bottom of the ''Poetic Edda'' section. Doesn't sound like "a mountain of secondary or tertiary discussion" to me. Are there any secondary sources that meaningfully discuss Sumarr and Vetr at length? If there are, I would love for the article to be expanded with useful content. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-:::Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries". We have a section discussing the historic record and then its scholastic reception, which is typical for accurate presentation of the Old Norse myth record, like in the handbooks of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow. This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know ''if you read the article you're trying to delete''. We have a section discussing the historic record and then its scholastic reception, which is typical for accurate presentation of the Old Norse myth record, like in the handbooks of Simek, Orchard, and Lindow. This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 01:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 *'''delete''' This is pure [[WP:OR|primary source analysis]]. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 13:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)