Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú

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. There is consensus here that the article as currently framed is unacceptable synthesis. There may be scholarly sources dealing with related material, but there is consensus that this material is better covered as part of a broader article. The argument against redirecting as opposed to outright deletion is weaker; the existence of a redirect does not necessarily endorse the notability or existence of the subject; but given the oddity of the title and the opposition to merging or redirecting, I'm deleting this outright. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H₂weh₁yú

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

H₂weh₁yú (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an encyclopedic topic. It is a bunch of synthesis based around a name that is not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists. It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off as ancient. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Walt Yoder: I am not clear on the deletion rationale here. Are you suggesting there is WP:SYNTHESIS in this article itself, or perhaps that the article is non-NPOV in giving WP:UNDUE representation toward a specific view on PIE reconstruction, or something different? —siroχo 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps my nomination is lacking, because I struggle to see how this is any different than people making narratives around Pokemon characters and cannot give a dispassionate assessment. If there is no coverage outside of a walled garden of PIE reconstructionists, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. And if it is presented as verifiable historical fact, it is inaccurate. Either would be reason for this not to be an article in its current form. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if a bunch of scholars have made up a name and created a body of literature around it, then no matter how bad the scholarship, and even if the bunch of scholars also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, and have to be taken back home by understanding policemen when they're found wearing their underpants on their heads in public, we have to report their work. So my question to Walt Yoder is "Are you saying that this concept doesn't exist in sources, but has been generated by Wikipedian Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists, or are you saying that the concept does exist in sources but is misguided and false, a product of very bad scholarship?". If the former, the article should be deleted, if the latter, it should be kept, but it would be right to add the opposing evaluation of the name, provided that another bunch of scholars have said it's a fraudulent thing. Elemimele (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Elemimele, I would like to be there, at a safe distance, to see this. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources in the article don't provide evidence of the notability of this reconstructed word. Mallory & Adams 2006 has one sentence on the subject; West 2007 has two sentences, along with some discussion of the cognates of the root word H₂weh₁; and Vassilkov, as far as I can tell, doesn't mention the word at all. The content sourced to Vassilkov appears to be synthesis; and the Etymology section, according to the article author, is AI generated and unverified. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: Vassilkov, as far as I can tell, doesn't mention the word at all I agree, Vassilkov does not use the name but he does discuss the topic of the article in some detail, the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European god of wind. Therefore it is significant as a source. Where do you see synthesis derived from Vassilikov? At first glance it looked like normal summary to me. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Vassilkov discusses the god in detail. I see two pieces of relevant information: (1) that the Proto-Slavic *Vey and the Indo-Iranian Vayu may be descendents of the PIE wind god; and (2) that the PIE god "was probably marked by ambivalence", as evidenced by the fact that later wind gods had a dual nature. I don't consider this to be significant coverage. As for the other two sources, Mallory & Adams 2006 doesn't mention a god, and West 2007 only says that the word *H₂weh₁ is of the animate gender, implying an active force.
On your question about the synthesis: there are two sentences in the article cited to this source. The first reads: The Slavic Viy is another possible cognate. Since the source doesn't use the word *H₂weh₁, then of course it doesn't say that Viy is a cognate of it. We might infer that, but it isn't stated. The second sentence is: He is hypothesized to have been linked to life and death through adding and taking breath from people. The source argues that the Indo-Iranian Vayu had this attribute, but it doesn't say the same of the PIE god. It is synthesis to take two distinct claims from the source ("Vayu had the power of life and death", "Vayu is descended from the PIE god") and draw an original conclusion ("The PIE god had the power of life and death"). Now I think about it, though, the article doesn't make this claim in wiki-voice so I suppose it's not technically synth, it's just factually incorrect; it's claiming that the source says something that it doesn't say.
The reason I assumed that the subject of the article was the word and not the god is because there appears to be almost nothing to say about the god. Take the article as it is now; then remove the two sentences quoted above; remove the unsourced AI-generated content; remove the irrelevant information about other gods, remove the misleading sentence Such a deity is attested in most traditions (because the deity is in fact not attested at all); and we are left with (a) an etymology of *H₂weh₁, (b) its cognates, and (c) a claim that this may have been the name of a PIE wind-god (charitably assuming that a source can be found for such a claim, since none of the three existing sources quite make this connection). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth: I have changed "cognate" to "equivalent entity" (like in the infobox), to correct this to what Vassilkov is actually saying. Is that better? Vassilkov discusses the opposing scholarly views that the Proto-Indo-European god of wind may be beneficial like Vayu or ambivalent like other wind gods, and why, a his conclusion. So in my view there's indeed something to tell. And I think Such a deity is attested in most traditions is correct, because "such a deity" is not meant not refer to "the god of the wind in Proto-Indo-European mythology", but only to "god of wind". And then it's a direct summary of West's "In most branches of the tradition we find evidence for the personification of the wind or winds, and in some cases for their receipt of religious honours.", who then goes on to list a number of examplary wind gods. So I guess the context/phrasing should be made clearer. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading Vassilkov differently than you, but admittedly I'm new to this subject area. If we grant that Vassilkov provides significant coverage, then that's one source contributing towards notability, but GNG requires in-depth discussion in multiple sources. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Changing to Comment based on work done by JungleEntity below. I still think there is value in an article about the PIE God of Wind. However, I am no longer convinced that this is the right article for it, so I'll stay neutral. Three RS and notable within narrow context of subject matter. The objections above are to the reconstructed word not the subject of the article which is a PIE deity. What do you plan to call the article, 'The Proto-Indo-European Wind God whose Name We're Arguing Over'? Also, there are roughly twenty articles of the same stripe being discussed as Talk:Walhaz. Are all of them are ripe for deletion or just this reconstructed word for a very real concept/thing? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in: I am not at all into these naming conventions. You wouldn't have a secondary source for the names under discussion at Talk:Walhaz (which does or does not confirm the use of *)? I agree that the scope of our article here is not only the word but also the concept. And West has "h2weh1-yú-", so I think we can use that or something similar established in secondary sources rather than having to go to "Proto-Indo-European wind god". Daranios (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the sources as I'm not in this field at all. I recognise the concept of PIE mythology, and feel that Whoever-it-is the Wind God is a valid article for an encyclopaedia. I do know that people on the linguistic side use the leading asterisk (it has a name that I haven't spent a brain cell to try and remember) to denote a reconstructed word. However, I also know that it makes a remarkably terrible title for an article. I can't believe that there is a reader out there, including those in the field, that would even imagine using that character in their search. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this title already has two subscripted numbers and an accent. Anyone who is going to search on this name with those characters will have no trouble with the *. All other arguments notwithstanding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or merge: I think the nomination is fundamentally flawed: Wikipedia is a general and specialized encyclopedia. So like Elemimele I believe if a topic is relevant to a narrow area of research, we still do not gatekeep from including that if attested in reliable secondary sources. Neither the article nor the cited sources "fraudulently passed off as ancient" the concept; rather it is clear that it is a reconstruction based on usual academic tools. (And isn't everything we cannot view and grasp ourselves a similar reconstruction, from the atom to dinosaurs to all of history past living memory?) That said, I don't have access to Mallory & Adams, but based on what is discussed above with Sojourner in the earth, volumewise one could probably treat the subject just as well at Indo-European mythology#Wind deities than as a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant information in Mallory and Adams is the following (this is in the context of a long list of words related to the weather): The words for "wind", *h2weh1-yus (Lith vejas "wind" and Skt vayu- "wind") and *h2weh1-nt- (e.g. NWels gwynt, Lat ventus, NE wind, Av vata-, Skt vata-, Toch B yente, Hit huwant-, all "wind"), both derive from the verb "to blow".
    On your suggestion to merge to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities: I could support a redirect to that article, but not a merge. Much of the content of H₂weh₁yú was copied from that article to begin with, and I don't think that any of the additions that have been made since the split are worth merging back in. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC) ETA: Striking my support for a redirect; Sirfurboy makes a good point that a redirect to the mythology article would be misleading. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sojourner in the earth: See my comment below why I (still) think a limited merge is the best solution. Daranios (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having evaluated the article sources and conducted searches on the name I am leaning delete here. Per Elemimele, my immediate reaction to the nom. statement was that if scholars have reconstructed the name of this deity and speak of it, the page should be kept, whereas if Wikipedia editors have reconstructed the name, we probably have WP:SYNTH. The nom. is not clear which is meant. However, looking at the sources, we have three. Mallory & Adams (2006) tell us that the word *H₂weh₁yús is the reconstructed word for wind. West (2007), gives two words for wind, *H₂weh₁yú and *H₂weh₁y-nt-. Neither tells us of a god of wind by that name, although West does find the derived name in the name of a Hittite power (not a god), huwantus. Vassilkov (2001) finds an indo-european root for Viy, but does not attempt to reconstruct the god. Per Sojourner in the earth we don't therefore have any source that attests a hypothesis that there was an indo-european god known by this name. The article title is the PIE reconstructed word for the wind. It is a reasonable hypothesis that a wind god existed that was related to this name, but why not "wind father" or similar. The god need not be given the same name as the reconstructed word for wind. Moreover, it is equally likely that the wind was understood in terms of animism rather than polytheism, and West's evidence points in that direction. In summary then, we have no sources making the specific claim of this article, that such a hypothesised god existed. This article takes three good sources and reaches a conclusion that none of them reach. This page is therefore WP:SYNTH and should be deleted. I note that Indo-European mythology#Wind deities already contains the information from West and Mallory & Adams, which are good sources when rightly understood. I do not therefore see the need to merge anything from this article and it can be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Vassilkov does attempt to reconstruct the god (to a degree): He talks about "a Proto-Indo-European god of wind" proposed by Abaev and a "reconstructed Indo-European god of wind, who had no sinister qualities" proposed by Ivanov, who also posited "Basically the Indo-European god was of a heavenly and benevolent nature". (I don't have access to either original publication, that would be interesting.) Vassilkov himself concludes: "it should be noted that even in the earliest Proto-Indo-European mythology, the image of the Wind-god was probably marked by ambivalence, and combined in itself both positive and negative characteristics." Daranios (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the thesis posits a proto-indo-european god of wind, but does not attempt to name it. It is the identification of the reconstructed PIE word for wind, *H₂weh₁yú with this posited and purely hypothetical god that is the SYNTH here. We are going beyond the sources to say that such a god was called H₂weh₁yú. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ETA Vassilkov quotes (Ivanov, 1971) which is a Russian language text that I cannot locate, but Vassilkov says more, elsewhere:

The figure of a god, probably the god of death, has, instead of a face and the upper part of the trunk, something resembling a grill. There is now sufficient material to reconstruct the image of the most ancient Indo-Iranian (and possibly Indo-European) god of death - as the god of wind and death. (Vassilkov, 1994:785)

So his thesis appears to be that the most ancient Indo-Iranian god of death is probably derived directly from the Indo-European god of wind and death. If we accept his thesis, we have a god, but we don't have reason to name that god H₂weh₁yú. We do, however, have evidence for the god's image, and that information may be notable for Indo-European mythology.
  • Vassilkov, Yaroslav (1 January 1994). "Some Indo-Iranian mythological motifs in the art of the Novosvobodnaya ('Majkop') culture". South Asian Archaeology 1993.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Now the identified problem, that Wikipedia article went beyond what the sources actually said, has been thankfully been remedied by Austronesier. Now the article puts West and Vassilkov and the rest in perspective. A good reason to put this together is that West does that, too. Not only does he point out "in most branches of the tradition we find evidence for the personification of the wind or winds", but also puts the name analysis under the heading "Wind Gods". However, to avoid any impression that the reconstructed name for wind has to be that of the reconstructed god, even if we don't say that, it's probably better to present that under the heading Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities rather than as a stand-alone article. Again, just as West does. But Vassilkov should be added there as a source, because he provides a worthwhile aspect to the area not yet present there. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reply to this just to try to help the closer. What you argue is that one of the sources here could usefully be employed on Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities. I am not convinced that is due, in fact, because personification of winds is not deification. In anthropology, animism tends to precede and progress to polytheism, but is not the same thing. Vassilkov does have a thesis about such a god, but even so, describes it only in terms of possibility. If you want to write that up on that page, that is fine, but it is not a merge from this page which makes (or made, as some has been deleted now) claims that went beyond any source. Thus my view is firmly that this page needs deletion, and not merge nor redirect. The reason is that (a) there is nothing here to merge there and (b) that a merge will leave a redirect there, and any redirect of this article name to that page is itself WP:OR. It is a suggestion that the reconstructed PIE word for wind (*H₂weh₁yú) was the name of the PIE god of wind. Again, we do not know there was a god of wind, and if there was, we don't know that the speakers of PIE named him simply "wind". As it happens, the sources are not even unanimous on the spelling of the word! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sirfurboy: I am still convinced a merge of the current, reworked version + redirect is the best solution: Neither the current version nor the target claim an identification of the word with the deity beyond what's in the sources any more, so the problem of original research is dealt with. The compact summary of the article by Vassilkov, which is not present at Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities, does fit exactly the subtopic as designated by that heading. So there is something to merge in my view. The word for wind is present there as well (the fact that "the sources are not even unanimous on the spelling" notwithstanding). I think noone has so far requested the removal there (although maybe that's because it's beyond the scope of our discussion here). But to me it makes sense that it is present there, not as a personal opionion, but because West also decided to treat it under the heading "Wind Gods" of his book, too. And as the word is present, it makes sense to have the redirect there. As for the last point, that a connection between the reconstructed word and the reconstructed deity might be implied by such a redirect, even if it is not present at the target: On the one hand, I think that connection will more be made by us, who now have the background of our article here, rather than a reader without any foreknowledge. On the other hand, if preferred, we could point the redirect as an anchor to the word directly rather than the heading "Wind deities", to exclude such an implication. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another relevant if brief source: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, p. 584, echoing pretty much what's in West. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, similar to West. A little more discussion of actual wind gods in Sanskrit, but again, no identification of a posited PIE wind god called *H₂weh₁yú. This page is going beyond the evidence in positing the name of a PIE wind god where no source claims such a god existed. We have sources for reconstructed words and sources for later attested gods where the names of the gods appear to be derived from the reconstructed word, but no one is saying that there was a wind god called *H₂weh₁yú and thus neither should we. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per evidence of SYNTH brought by others. The edit summary "etymology section is AI generated so needs verification" is damning. Draftify might be an option. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "not attested by anyone other than Proto-Indo-European reconstructionists"
This is how historical linguistics works. Who else would be constructing PIE? PIE is unattested but is still a very serious topic of research. I don't have enough knowledge on PIE itself to want to weigh in on this specific article, but I do worry this AFD is being done in a vacuum with understanding the nature of how linguistic reconstructions work and why and how they are considered valid.
It is a modern creation being fraudulently passed off
If this is about PIE reconstructions, no, this isn't the case. This is a major, serious field of historical linguistics and is not even vaguely fringe. If this is about this specific article then I think we need to get some PIE experts to weigh in, because I think there's a risk of something worthwhile being deleted by those unfamiliar with PIE and Indo-European Mythology. Warrenmck (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: I suggest to read Sirfurboy's arguments carefully. The discussion has went far beyond the admittedly poorly-argued rationale by the OP. The concept of a IE wind deity is discussed in the relevant literature, the IE word for wind is reconstructed with a high level of confidence, but: claiming that Proto-IE speakers would have called the IE wind deity *H₂weh₁yú is nowhere found in the literature and thus WP:SYNTH, if mildly spoken (@Sirfurboy being too nice, as always), or in plain words (me being blunt, as alwys), a forgery. –Austronesier (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only point I was trying to make here is that PIE reconstructions are not fringe, I don’t know enough about this exact topic to want to weigh in beyond some of the initial statements of the submitter which looked critical of PIE itself, rather than the article. Otherwise I’d have said keep, but it does look like this article is a big SYNTH issue. Warrenmck (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Warrenmck: It took me some time to get behind the OP's rationale, but they specifically talk about "PIE reconstructionists", i.e. people doing pseudo-neoreligious IE amateur fancruft (search for "reconstructionist"+"Indo-european" in Google), not about academic IE studies. @Walt Yoder: correct me if I'm wrong; if you put Mallory & Adams into the same league, many of us will disagree. –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read "PIE reconstructionists" as "Evolutionists", i.e. othering a mainstream field (unintentionaly in this case), so perhaps that's just a differing read on our part, and if I misunderstood @Walt Yoder then my sincere apologies! Warrenmck (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can also confirm that Mallory and Adams doesn't have the word in question in it, just the root for wind. From what I've read above, if only source 3 implies the PIE God of Wind, I still don't think it's a good to stand on one source. JungleEntity (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that treating this as a god's name seems to be synthesis. As West (2007) says in Chapter 3 (I don't know the pages) "Of the many individual gods that the Indo-Europeans must have known by name, very few can now be identified." The section from which this page was split was just named "Wind deities", which corresponds with West's section title "Wind gods" in Chapter 6. This seems to be an instance where he does not claim that the reconstructed word is the name of a deity, unlike *Dyēus. SilverLocust 💬 05:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sirfurboy. In the exisiting literature, *H₂weh₁yú stands for the reconstructed proto-IE for 'wind', nothing else. If we were to keep the article with this title, its content would be a mere dictionary entry (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). The claim that *H₂weh₁yú was the name of the IE wind deity is WP:orginal research, or bluntly: made-up. So what about the content? We could of course move the page to Indo-European wind deity (and delete the misleading redirect), but then the question is about WP:GNG. The possibilty of a dedicated wind deity in the mythology of proto-IE speakers is certainly discussed in the literature, but never treated as a topic of its own. The information we have in Proto-Indo-European_mythology#Wind_deities is comprehensive and best left there within its context. –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, the "Etymology" was generated by a stochastic parrot, so it needs to be expunged. Second, with the WP:SYNTH removed, there's nothing left beyond a brief dictionary entry. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: I was reading through this AfD and was shocked by you making such a crass attack on the author's character, but I looked through the article history and realized that you were not speaking figuratively! I have, then, removed this sentence entirely — what the hell was that doing there in the first place? — golly gee whiz, what is the world coming to. jp×g
  • Comment. The PIE word for 'wind' is reconstructed for the weather phenomenon. As for a possible deity of winds, its name seems to be reconstructed from the Avestan and Indic deities, and no one else. Also, there is the problem of the wind/air gods in the daughter languages whose names are not cognates to the Indic/Avestan ones, making this PIE wind god sketchy at best. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how do you even pronounce this? It looks like a name Elon Musk would inflict on a small child.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laryngeal theory#Pronunciation. Curbon7 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it seems like everyone above agrees that the topic is notable but the title is not. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to manufacture acceptance of a word, so as it stands for me that's a clear delete. JMWt (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment FWIW, I have argued against notability of the topic. Quoteing myself: The possibilty of a dedicated wind deity in the mythology of proto-IE speakers is certainly discussed in the literature, but never treated as a topic of its own. The information we have in Proto-Indo-European_mythology#Wind_deities is comprehensive and best left there within its context. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an enlarged DICDEF. Nothing we need to have an entire article about, could be a subsection in the main language article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would also be worthwhile to take a look at User:Immanuelle's, the author of the article in question, other articles about Proto Indo European deities. Many of their articles, such as PriHyéh₂ and Heryomen have dubious validity, with some sources listed not mentioning the subject of the article. In fact, in Heryomen, the Oxford Introduction to PIE (a cited source) lists a different reconstructed god for the god of war, "*ma¯wort-" (Page 409). Ironically, in that same section, Mallory and Adams stress that the commonly reconstructed PIE deities "are of uncertain or, frankly, doubtful validity.", despite it attracting more attention than other PIE semantic categories (which is probably the cause of these doubtful reconstructions). For Heryomen, Immanuelle cites from Mallory and Adams only a few pages relating to words about metals and weapons (as is the same with many of their other cited sources), leading me to conclude that they simply reconstructed this word, which is the entire subject of the article, themselves, constituting WP:Original Research. As I dig through more and more of their articles about PIE deities, I continue to only find the cited sources having a small, doubtful, reconstruction at best, or not mentioning what they are being cited for at worst.
Many mainstream scholars in Indo European linguistics (such as Anthony, Mallory and Adams, Fortson) will tell you that reconstructing more than Dyēus is putting yourself in murky waters, one where personal ideology sometimes has more influence than actual science. I implore other editors to take a look at these articles, just to make sure I'm not going crazy. JungleEntity (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going crazy. I already had taken a look at these. I think they are all linked from List of Proto-Indo-European deities, but I am a little daunted by the process here. I believe there is a means to nominate multiple pages, but I have not used it. In any case, to do it diligently, we need to check the references on each, and that might need indivdual nominations. As you say, Dyḗus ph₂tḗr would likely be a keep. The un-named smith god doesn't make the dubious linguistic assertion of others. Ḱérberos might be better as a redirect etc. It's quite a lot of work. I hope to have more time in a week or so. Perhaps I will try nominating these at that time. In the meantime I will watchlist the lot in case anyone else wants to do so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start going through sources, and probably make a draft page of my list vetting each. I'll link it here when I'm done. JungleEntity (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally closed this discussion with this comment:
  • The result was merge‎ to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities. This discussion didn't really require a relisting but when I first read it over, it required some time to digest alll of the comments on a subject that I'm unfamiliar with. I think this is a closure that editors can be satisfied with. If not, then I guess I can see you at Deletion Review.
But my closure was challenged on my talk page with a compelling argument so I have undone the Merge and will leave this discussion for another closer to handle as apparently, even though I thoroughly reviewed all of the comments here, I didn't get deep enough into the weeds to assess the fundamental problems with this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mallory & Adams mentions the reconstructed PIE word(s). West mentions it (in somewhat different form) and relates it to words in other languages which in some cases can mean divine powers. Neither reconstruct that the PIE word itself meant a deity or deities, or trace the gods of different traditions back to a reconstructed common origin. Vassilkov, who doesn't mention the word but does have relevant material, seems ambivalent and I'm not really sure what to make of it (conclusion: "Even if Abaev's hypothesis is considered proven, we still face the problem: does the interrelation between Vayu and Viy imply a parallel development from a common Indo-European source, or it is to be traced back to Indo-Iranian cultural influence on Slavic mythology?"). Overall it's pretty scant material to work with for an article.
    On the question of alternatives, I wouldn't be too upset with a redirect, if it remains mentioned at Proto-Indo-European mythology#Wind deities: the redirect's existence by itself doesn't imply we're saying that H₂weh₁yú is a deity. It would be a redirect because here's the one place in the encyclopedia where you'll find anything about what you just searched (and if you read that one place, it should only say what's verifiable about it). Mostly, though, I just think it's an unlikely search term so that's why I'd go with delete. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2023 (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/H₂weh₁yú&oldid=1170929656"