Talk:Female spirits in Germanic paganism

Article creation

I have created this article per the discussion on talk:dis and the need for some sort of cover-all wiki for the general topic. I intend to improve it and fill out some citations. Feel free to edit it as appropriate (of course), correct any errors, and croslink with relevant articles. I agree with given each subtopic its own page. Obotlig (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Further note: I envision this artcle as a good location to bring together the detailed discussions of how and why these different myths, prayers, etc. may be related and bring consistency to the other articles. Also I found paganism preferable to mythology so the incantations and practices could be viewed in the light of a historical religion rather than merely myths or stories. Comments/ideas? Obotlig (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that this article is synthetic; it presents a unified whole where there is not one. These concepts overlap or may be one in the same, and are best handled on their respective articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge request

• Prefer deletion. Nothing in this article is worth merging anywhere, as it's essentially a confused directory for various "female spirits" (?). I think it just needs to be deleted and with it all links to it it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge Bloodofox has been handling related articles reasonably and with attention to accuracy, if not somewhat aggressively. I dispute that it is synthesis (perhaps verging on it but not as far as OR) as we can obviously cite scholars who associate some of the female "spirits" (deities is not necessaily a better word). This is more like a list page which is within the editor's prerogative. If you find this article bothersome as a list of related topics and that it has no place in any of the articles and is fundamentally irksome, be rid of it. However, I don't think the argument that none of the scholars have associated any of these concepts will hold up (the dis-idis split is borderline absurd). I cannot say that I had no POV motivation in creating this article. I am glad to see someone overseeing the articles. Thanks. Obotlig (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a source surfaces. The article is (for all intents) unsourced, and only consists of summaries of other articles, and afaict could be replaced by a category. The summaries are of questionable quality and neutrality, and appear to have introduced new interpretations and attributing them to the linked articles. Without some source stating these groups should be seen in relation to each other (preferably by doing so), this is WP:SYNTH. Eroen (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)