Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Norse gods

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 no consensus. Despite almost a month of debate, there is still deep-seated disagreement about sources, overlap with List of Germanic deities, and other core issues. I don't see how letting this run for another week will resolve those, so tossing in the towel on the debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Norse gods

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article rests on synthesis and its topic is not notable in scholarship. The family relationships between the Germanic deities vary between sources (and the situation is complicated by both changes over time and differences between geographical regions: "Norse gods" is in itself a simplification) and are only very partially represented in genealogical terms; what both the original texts and the scholarly sources say is better represented in List of Germanic deities and in the individual articles on the gods and goddesses. To have this article as well misleadingly suggests a genealogy can be constructed on which sources largely agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology. If sources disagree about some of the details, that's not a reason to delete because that's a common problem for all topics. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that this is already covered on another article, List of Germanic deities? Second, the source you've linked to is not a reliable source on the topic. "General" pieces on mythology regularly produce also sorts of nonsensical bullshit on the topic to uncritical audiences all the time, from Bulfinch to today. Please cite only from specialists in Germanic studies in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source is fine, being edited by a professor of anthropology. Here's another one published by the Oxford University Press. To suggest that we require better sources is mistaken because Wikipedia is not an esoteric academic work. Thor here is as likely to be a modern myth of comics, TV or movies and, as they're all fanciful stories, the older ones will just have to take their place with the rest. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source is not fine and neither is the second. As editors, we are expected to use our hands in discerning what is and is not a reliable source. These are both general audience works by individuals with no backgrounds in Germanic studies (!). There's a huge amount of academic discourse on this topic in the field—by those who know what they're talking about. To fob off these numerous issues with a simple Google Books search that yields some general audience "overviews" of mythology is both disrespectful to both academics who work int he field and to the reader of this article who expects accurate information. I have no idea why you're referring to modern popular culture material reflexes as this is unrelated to the subject and discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bloodofox on these surveys of mythology; I was trying to think of a polite way to say it so now I will just support his critique: they provide a useful overview and many of us owe our original interest in this and other pantheons to them, but they have to summarize and neaten up the material by their very nature, and anthropology is a different field from comparative mythology, let alone ancient Scandinavian or Germanic studies. Thor (Marvel comics) is a red herring here (as would be the versions of the Germanic deities in games going back to Dungeons and Dragons; we have separate articles on the comics mythos for a reason). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our articles are supposed to represent what the most reliable sources say about a topic. In this instance the geneology of the gods is a complex topic and its representation as a family tree is not even something normally done in scholarly works. Yes, we should cover the genealogy of the gods. But we should not oversimplify it in a misleading fashion in contradiction to what reliable sources - the actual texts and scholarship - say. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. One might cavil about Marvel comics but even there Sif is Thor's wife and Odin is his father. Works produced by a respectable university press are obviously acceptable and to say otherwise is a violation of WP:OWN. That seems to be the problem here as I've figured out that this is a variation of the infobox wars in which an owning faction insists that their topic is too difficult and precious to be presented in a simple, accessible way. And, sure enough, I find Bloodofox and Yngvadottir on the talk page of Thor taking this stance. Sorry but I don't accept that and I don't accept that deletion is a proper way of driving off editors with a different approach. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Marvel comics stuff—where Loki is conveniently Thor's brother and a son of Odin, etc, etc.—is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Let's stay on topic. Infoboxes are a whole other can of worms with their own multitude of potential problems and are not being debated here.

University presses produce questionable stuff all the time, especially when aimed at general audiences, and the fact that these authors you've cited have no background in a directly related field raises every red flag. Scholars working in Germanic studies are well aware that there are both diachronic and synchronic issues with the source material (and its absence) that raise too many questions and produce too many contradictions for a single "Family tree of Norse gods" to be accurately or reasonably produced. In fact, with the development of historical linguistics, there's no longer question that there was significant regional variation, not to mention major developments over time. With some digging, you may find a chart illustrating the family tree contents of some translations of the Poetic Edda or the Prose Edda (perhaps in tandem given the relation of the texts)—and there a chart can easily be produced when it's a matter of a scope limited to these two sources—but that would, as I said, be a different chart altogether (something like "family tree of the Æsir and Vanir per the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda" or maybe even "Family Trees in the Eddas").

It sounds to be me like you might be assuming bad faith. To be clear, nobody is attempting to "driv[e] off editors with a different approach". They're welcome to collaborate—we need them. But their contributions must be accurate and from reliable sources, without synthesis and original research. That is the issue here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University presses, by their nature, are aimed at a scholarly audience and so are at least as good as any other source. It is not our policy to instead pick and choose sources which article owners prefer. My position is unchanged. The information in question is notable and, presented in this format, passes WP:LISTN. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are incorrect regarding how university presses operate. For example, university presses publish a substantial amount of trade and general audience material, including creative fiction and poetry collections. Some material published by university presses goes through a peer review process, some does not. In general, material that makes its way through the rigors of the peer review process is far superior that material that does not, of course, but general audience works don't generally receive that level of scrutiny. That said, it is indeed our policy to sniff out what is and is not an appropriate source, a process that is admittedly complicated but demands that we find the best sources for our material—scholars who are working in the area in which they are publishing, ideally. There's no shortage of works by scholars in the field covering this material out there and there's no reason we should be turning to misleading general audience works composed by individuals working outside of the field in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respect the nom's knowledge of mythology, but must respectfully disagree here. The idea that some Norse gods are kin is not in doubt. Indeed, List of Germanic deities through its Attested children column contains family trees in list form. Structurally, this is a well-formed list-class article with notable entries per WP:SAL. Family trees as a presentation format are officially supported via Wikipedia:Family trees. It is true that sources can disagree on family structure, but disagreement among RS is settled by giving a balanced presentation of the alternatives, not deleting whole articles. In this case, I have made a modest start by adding to the article: This family tree gives an example pedigree. With respect to kin relations of Norse gods, there are regional variations and disagreement among sources. A well formed list-class article that is sourced and can be fixed through normal editing suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with every point of your response. This is by no means a scholarly approach and your citing of other problematic mythological family trees (which suffer from exactly the same issues) as a defense of the article is honestly only further muddying our already problematic approach to this material on Wikipedia, which would be scoffed at by any specialist in these areas who is familiar with the problems inherent in the source material. This "family tree" of the Old Norse gods varies from by time, place, and source—potentially even by the agenda of the author. This tree is almost entirely cobbled together from the Prose Edda. We could use an article specifically about the family tree presentation in the Prose Edda, but claiming that it is possible to produce a salient family tree like this is complete nonsense and the mark of an individual ignorant on a fundamental level to the problems inherent in the Germanic corpus. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This article is a steaming pile of unscholarly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that duplicates material handled in a scholarly and appropriate manner in List of Germanic deities. Any specialist handling this chart would scoff at its premise given the problems inherent in the North Germanic corpus (and the Germanic corpus in general). All this list does is mislead the reader—it's outright misinformation. A family tree derived *solely* from the Prose Edda would be another matter but that would also be a totally different article. I would be glad to assist in such an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete As per above. I could however see the value in merging this as a graphic into existing articles. Maybe. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 10:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Redirect to List of Germanic deities or List of Norse deities if one is created. Goustien (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'd like to see it redirected to List of Germanic deities, as has been discussed on the talk page. It's a plausible search term. However, "turn into a redirect" isn't something one can propose in an AfD rationale. And better would be developing an article on Genealogy of the Norse gods, which discussed the evidence and its contradictions (and might even have partial family trees to illustrate points, including contrasting versions of the relationships) and redirecting this there. But that would involve quite a bit of work, and I don't think it's urgent—it hasn't been a big focus of scholarly work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to point out that this redirect suggestion is from the article's primary author ([1]). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of full disclosure: I created the original article on English Wikipedia, translating from the article (https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_nordiske_guders_stamtr%C3%A6), which has been on Danish Wikipedia since 2006. I thought it appropriate to have this family tree as an analog to the Family tree of the Greek gods and was not then aware that the Norse genealogy was less consistent than the Greek. Goustien (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom's analysis shows need for article expansion, not deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a diagram. How can it be expanded to show the multiple variations and differences of scholarly opinion? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that an "expanded" version already exists at List of Germanic deities. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2016 (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.