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 closed as a duplicate AfD; the principal AfD for this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salian Mythology. Sandstein 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salian Frankish Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log) This article lacks Reliable sources, and can not be made verifiable. It is based on a single student's writings and so it does not have the required NPOV. It also contradicts with major scholars on several points. The concerns that arise from the article have been discussed with the original author, but he is not willing to adress the arguments. johanthon 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge with Continental Germanic mythology-- It appears it one of those scholar wars. I believe that deletion is not a good way to handle the problems in articles, that they create. A better way is engaging editors writing in a closely related field, eg "continental mythology" Victor falk 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are to many problems with sources and verifiabillity. That makes it certianly NOT "one of those scholar wars" johanthon 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that was not a good thing of me to say. I see that both this and Salian mythology have have been nominated for Afd, and that the debates on the discussions' page are not tepid. French history and nordic mythology are two areas where I can say I know a bit more than the average man on the street, and I say it's WP:SNOWBALL that it is a notable subject. However, given, as you say, the paucity of sources about late antiquity germanic tribes, much in the field is speculative. My opinion is that in such cases it is recommendable gather the material in an article with a broader scope, as to have as many opinions as possible in related but uninvolved subjects. What not to do is to let the article fester as a "lord of the flies" povforkisland.--Victor falk 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Victor falk 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Frankish Mythology is certainly an interesting one, but the article is about Salian Frankish mythology. Since there are hardly any sources on this one, it is hard to make an article at all. So Viktor's WP:SNOWBALL is highly optimistic: How can we make an article on a case without sources??? Viktor is also forgetting the way the original author reacts. He tries to belittle a wikipedian because of her occupation, and tells you to keep your "senseles waffle". This is part of the problem. The article Salian Frankish Mythology was the same as Salian Mythology but Rokus01 (the original author) changed that in a redirecht page when he noticed that the majority of votes on Salian Mythology were for deleting the article. So he deleted it himself and started the same all over. johanthon 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The salians a frankish subtribe, is there much difference between their mythologies? I'd like to know such stuff, and not the least different theories. I think it's a pity what could be good articles are flushed because of editors pushing for "my truth, not yours".--Victor falk 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that why several wikipedians asked for reliable sources and more scholars? johanthon 08:56, 12 October 2007 (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.