Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan (mythology)

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, unverifiable.  RasputinAXP  c 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evan (mythology)

Evan lacks historical evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glengordon01 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-11 22:37:08 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup It is notable, but it needs a lot more information Well, it's obviously going to be deleted so never mind --Mason 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• To further explain, what I see is a link to the Lares who are Roman deities, not Etruscan. The confusion between Roman and Etruscan cultures has to stop. It's patently inane to think they are interchangeable cultures in this day and age. Their differences were explained by classical Roman and Greek authors, albeit with potential bias, but nonetheless Etruscan society, mythology, culture, language, etc is fairly distinct from Roman culture for a few early authors to have mentioned differences in the first place! What I'm concerned about is that "Evan" is in fact not based on anything real, but simply taken from some crackpot Wiccan website, of which there are many. On these sites, so many of the deities are fictitious constructs meant to fill in gaps in historical knowledge via fertile imagination rather than honest academic research. --Glengordon01 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Btw, sorry to beat up on you good Wiccans out there but Etruscan history and Wiccanism is a bad mix ;) --Glengordon01 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unsourced article, fails WP:V. And, being "_one of the_ Lares" is almost non-notable by definition, if my knowledge of Classical mythology is anything to go by. Tevildo 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have researched and sourced this article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, unless references are added. I certainly cannot find any... /wangi 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added references to the article. Please view them. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I didn't look hard enough to actually find a legitamate source, but at 19000 hits for evan etruscan, and pages on the first page talking about how Evan is an Etruscan god/goddess, it's a keeper. Needs expanding/citation, not deletion. --PresN 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - On second thought, based on the other comments here, it can't be expanded, as it's total crap. Thanks to whoever did the U of Chicago source down there. --PresN 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't just say "It's a popular myth therefore it's a keeper". That's braindead. A lie is a lie. Ask an Etruscanologist what Evan is and (s)he'll think you're a total newbie twat. --Glengordon01 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I have researched and expanded the article; this is a legitimate and notable article, although it is a stub. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How credible are the sources? I only see internet links, those are always dubious and not really research. --84.184.110.234 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: I'd echo the concern above - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources of dubious reliability. Thanks/wangi
  • Comment: I strongly echo the above concern as well. There's too much junk on the net. Let's get real sources from books, preferably from Etruscanologists or even classical authors, not modern pro-pagan websites. --Glengordon01 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• MISTRANSLATIONS AND HEARSAY: As of Jul.12.2006, the article displays complete ignorance of the actual Etruscan language. Yet again, it's confused with Roman culture and the Latin language. There is absolutely no word evi in Etruscan, only avil which means "year". Total idiocy masquerading as fact. --Glengordon01 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V so far as I can tell. Unable to find any reliable sources online for this, including those cited (they offer no references or other reason to believe that fact checking was done) when I started researching an hour ago. Reliable sources in the first 100 unique hits of this google search only used "Evan" as part of a name for a modern person. (The companion search with "evi" specifically required only used "evi-" in a hyphenated form of "evidence" or "evidant" and equivalent irrelevant uses.) No relevant hits on Google Scholar. No reason to keep from Google Book, as the only viewable relevant page says that Evan is an unexplained name for one of the Lasas. If anyone wants to do library research I can recommend looking for the following which might be hits but isn't viewable online: The Etruscan Language: An Introduction, Revised Editon by Giuliano Bonfante, Larissa Bonfante, page 188 - the google book search gives enough contect to establish that "Evan" is a name for a Lasa, but no more. GRBerry 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I found something else on Google Book Search:

In several cases, proper names accompany these figures [of young female daemons], typically Etruscan names about which nothing else is known, such as Alpan, Evan, Zipna [...] — 'Etruscan Daemonology', in Bonnefoy, Yves (1992), Roman and European Mythologies, University of Chicago Press, p. 41.

Hmmm, doesn't sound like this article is very verifiable... — Haeleth Talk 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good work, Haeleth! So, in one word: reification. Amazing how a god can be invented ex nihilo based on a single word accompanying a particular artifact. The question I have now is... which artifact? Picture? --Glengordon01 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after reading the other comments, i have changed my mind. please delete this unverfiable article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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.