Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh

: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. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge any of it elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

=[[Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh]]=

:{{la|Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Key_concepts_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Epic_of_Gilgamesh Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh}})

Duplicate article/content, Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY . This article is essentially a dictionary or concordance of the Epic of Gilgamesh, definitions of everything the editor feels is important. Of course, it's entirely redundant with our existing article on the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the important "persons and things" are already explained, and with the existing articles we have on related subjects (which are also already linked from Epic of Gilgamesh). I have suggested that the editor take this to Wiktionary, the appropriate project for definitions and concordances (see Wiktionary:Concordances), but they're continuing here. Woodroar (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It's not everything i feel is important, it's based on words of which the meanings are not apparent. In any case the whole discussion seems redundant to me since firstly, and for example, List of people mentioned by name in the Quran has existed for number of years already and nobody has contested it's existence, but more importantly, there are already too many articles of "Lists of..." for me to spend time counting > List of lists of lists, really a significant number. Why ever would there be a hurry to discuss deletion though? since, Woodroar already having contacted me, that the article might be given time to develop in any case. What is the hurry? What actual harm is the article currently doing? It might serve to add something to understanding and scholarship, wikipedia as we all know is about learning, you both seem so eager to dismiss this for reasons of policy, but the reason wikipedia exists is to help people to learn, how is the article failing to do that? and how about other policies which might contradict WP:NOT#DICTIONARY < this policy isn't all encompassing, which the Lists of Lists of Lists page demonstrates. Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:by the way what currently is the bar for failure? I'm learning gymnastics so I'd like to know Мандичка, you go tell me (next time we see each other at the gymnasium eh?) Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:I don't actually see explanations of < the important "persons and things" > in the article Epic of Gilgamesh I think you just presumed that these explanaitions existed Woodroar, without checking. In any case, the List of article offers an easy and concise way for people to look through important "persons and things" (which you've so helpfully identified is the actual subject of the Lists article), instead of going through a some-what lengthy main article. There isn't anything more to say on the issue unless there is another additional relevant criticism from someone I'm sure, unless I've missed something about this discussion, if so then someone please enlighten me. yes, a new bar for failure, is that like, 2 metres or like .... what ? Whalestate (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::It fails every possible criteria. I thought about creating an article called "List of things that fail harder than the article list of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh" but then I realized it would be blank. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:::@Whalestate: that problems exist in other articles (also called "other stuff exists") is a reason to fix those other articles, though, not a reason to keep this one. Ultimately, WP:NOT is policy because there is one thing that Wikipedia is—an encyclopedia where we summarize what reliable sources say about subjects—and many things that Wikipedia is not. We don't do definitions (that's Wiktionary) or reproduce texts (Wikisource and Wikibooks) or quotes (Wikiquotes) or tutorials (Wikiversity) or media (Commons). (You can see our full list of projects at Wikimedia project.) We do have some lists, but they primarily serve to direct readers to articles, and there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all. (See WP:PROSE, for example.) What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords. So we're discussing this rather than letting the article develop because this list is fundamentally outside the scope of what we're doing here. If you'd like, you're welcome to add content to Epic of Gilgamesh, to flesh out the plot or add more details about the more important people or places or things, keeping in mind important policies like WP:DUE. I hope you can understand why this is an issue. Woodroar (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::@Woodroar We do have some lists... I included copy of the article (below) to demonstrate your error in thinking some and not a seemingly vast number (numerous, a great number, a forminable number).Your whole argument on the basis it is a list, as you can see, the number of main heading of list articles alone is really extensive. You think because there is currently a discussion about the validity of list articles (there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all), that it would make a difference to the number of list articles already? So, the discussion might result in every single list article deleted in order to follow policy, that's what your claiming ? What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords - I doubt if it's possible you have surveyed the entire set of List articles or wikipedia to know for yourself if this is true, tell me if you have. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::An article should be considered on it's own merits, and not on the basis of policy, since, firstly policy is fluid to some degree, and secondly, wikipedia representing an encyclopedia using the internet allows for a looser interpretation of what might and might not be allowed under the definition such a thing. Wiki, meaning quick, would certainly indicate as a absolute surety, that to speed the access to knowledge is the defining feature of this encyclopedia, and so allowing some-one to see all the words detailed in the list would contribute to acceleration of learning. Plus, there are red-links in the list, which might indicate further investigation is needed (which is being hampered by this discussion slightly I might add)

::::In any case, I might in the future move the article from a title including list, if that is your problem, but let me reiterate, how could it be considering the evidence I've provided, irrespective of what-ever this or that policy you might consider proves it isn't encyclopediac, the reality of wikipedia is certainly something different to that which an absolute observance of policy should allow.Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions] > "Just unencyclopedic" which I think is the main thrust of your detailing various projects above, but really is easily summarized as fulfilling the WP:UNENCYC policy inclusion I've given as evidence from Arguments to avoid. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::In-as-much as lists aren't really acceptable per policy, if the name were changed after a period of re-working then it might serve a purpose beyond that which is identified here as insufficient grounds for inclusion, since wikipedia is infact a work in progress. Your rigid observance of policy is stifling the development of the article though, wouldn't you say so? If it transpires that in attempting to develop the article under discussion, there results in something found to be unacceptable, then better at that time to discuss deletion, wouldn't you agree? Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::I'm still keeping to the evidence of the number of lists alone as sufficient grounds for retaining the article under discussion. Considering the proportion of relatively trivial and more obscure articles included below (please refer to the original) I would think something as important as the subject under discussion would warrant further attention, whether or not anyone has identified some grounds for deletion. The article might fail, at this time, but later move beyond the scope of failing. I don't know of reasons underlying policy as to why anyone would want to harry the progress of an article for reasons of policy, to sacrifice the possibility of greater good. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::OK: On its own merit, this article has none. I'm not sure what the point was of listing all those lists... do you mean that because they exist, all lists are therefore valid? Sounds like it's time to finally create List of people who have never been in my kitchen. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::Really? I didn't know you had such a popular and interesting kitchen! perhaps you might just make that article, well, how about starting now to compile the list, and tell me when you've finished? I'll be waiting eagerly for your reply Мандичка, no need to contact me before then, since you've so much work to be getting along with. Thanks! Whalestate (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::@Whalestate: some decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, which is why all articles have a Talk page, and why we have a discussion-based deletion process such as this one. But we also have policies and guidelines determined primarily by WP:CONSENSUS (but sometimes handed down by fiat from the Wikimedia Foundation). WP:NOT has been a consensus-based policy since 2001 and it enjoys broad support across the project. (Consensus can change, of course, but you'll have to bring that to our Village Pump for policy, not here.) Our policies and guidelines allow any editor who finds an article about the perpetual motion machine some crank built in his garage or about how world leaders are actually lizards to mark that article for deletion and have the full support, by extension, of the project itself. So no, we don't let you write a dictionary because that's not what we're trying to do here.

::::::And just a couple quick responses:

::::::I haven't used the "just unencyclopedic" argument at all, and I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.

::::::The possibility that this list may become a full prose article is irrelevant. Pretend for a moment that every term gets defined, then gets context added to it, and all of a sudden we have another article on Epic of Gilgamesh. No, we don't do duplicate articles. That level of detail, if reliable sources support it, already belongs in Epic of Gilgamesh or the separate article about that term.

::::::Yes, we have lists. I have never denied that. But lists fill a niche role, and—here's the important part—they don't overlap with existing articles. To use the top two examples from your list of lists: we have Lists of academic journals (which also contains its own sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every academic journal for which we an article; and we have a Lists of important publications in science (again, with sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every important publication in science. Do you see where I'm going? List of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh currently violates WP:NOT and has significant overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh, but even with an astounding amount of work it could only ever become Persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh which is closer to our scope but would still fundamentally overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh.

::::::So, to make a long story short (too late!), if you're interested in the Epic of Gilgamesh, your efforts would be appreciated at Epic of Gilgamesh, not a list that not only violates policies but duplicates our efforts. Again, I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::@Woodroar Okay, I appreciate your candour, and I see your argument has support, but it has a flaw also, this being as I see it, that there is an overlap, but I have mentioned already the presence of red links...so the chance of new development of articles not covered in the main article. Whalestate (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Well, yes and no. If you (or anyone) starts a new article on, say, The Revered Cow, then we may link to it from Epic of Gilgamesh. (It's not like Epic of Gilgamesh or any other article is truly complete, after all.) But here's the thing: our content is determined almost exclusively by reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V). The threshold for notability—that is, whether a subject warrants an article at all—is that multiple reliable sources must have written about that subject "directly and in detail" (WP:N) and that the subject isn't excluded by WP:NOT. But even within articles, we write in proportion to what reliable sources say (WP:DUE). So let's use the Revered Cow as an example. If multiple reliable sources—in this case, reputable scholars—have written about the Revered Cow, then it's probably appropriate for someone to start that article. When we look at sources, full-length books about the Revered Cow would be great, but chapters in books or articles in journals would be good as well. If these multiple sources exist, then red-linking to The Revered Cow is probably okay because the subject is notable, it's just that nobody has gotten around to creating the article yet. (It used to be more like this years ago, but not so much anymore. Most notable subjects already have an article, even if it's a WP:STUB.) If there aren't multiple sources, though, we shouldn't be red-linking because the subject isn't notable. And sometimes so few sources mention a term that Wikipedia shouldn't, either. If we were to pick 100 sources about the Epic of Gilgamesh and they all mentioned the Revered Cow in passing, then we should probably mention it in Epic of Gilgamesh. If the majority of those 100 sources went into some detail on the Revered Cow, say a few sentences or maybe a paragraph or two, then we should follow suit. But if only a handful of those sources mention the Revered Cow at all, then the subject isn't important enough to cover, even as a passing mention. What it comes down to is that we're like good journalists: we always follow the sources, summarizing what they say in proportion to what they say. Woodroar (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, it's true. My kitchen is amazing. I'll get to that article after I finish my pièce de résistance, List of yellow things in Memphis, Texas. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

{{cot}}

General reference

Culture and the arts

Literature

Art and the arts

Performing arts

Visual arts

Entertainment and recreation

Games

Sports

Food and drink

Mass media

Geography and places

Natural geographical features

Countries and regions

Places

Settlements

Mathematics and logic

Natural and physical sciences

Biology

Physical sciences

People

Religion and belief systems

Society and social sciences

Linguistics

Social institutions

Infrastructure

Economy and business

Education

Government and politics

Law

War

Technology and applied science

Medicine

Military

Technology

Miscellaneous

{{portal|Lists}}

{{cob}}

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I don't entirely think that it's inappropriate to bring up other list articles. While no, the existence of another list does not mean that everything merits a list, there is merit in having a page that lists the various people mentioned in the EoG. There are other articles about religious texts that list the people mentioned in the work like List of Book of Mormon people, List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, and List of biblical names starting with A. (I'm aware that EoG was originally handed down orally, but for argument's sake I'm classifying it as a "text" for the sake of brevity.) However if this is to remain as a list page it should be a list page that only covers the people mentioned in the work and it could be re-worked to be something like List of people and names mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The idea of themes or concepts in a religious text has the potential to be a very, very weighty topic and could easily overwhelm a page, which is why it should not be combined with a list of people. It can also be fairly esoteric and can rely very heavily on personal interpretation, which is why it's typically encouraged for people to write sections about the concepts or themes that summarize the information as opposed to creating lists. Basically, themes and concepts can be theoretically infinite (or at least too numerous to include on a page) while places and people are finite. I can see the merit in having a page similar to this, although I do think that this needs to be refined to fall more in line with the list pages for people in the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon. I'm sure that you could probably find someone at one of the varied WikiProjects listed on the EoG talk page that would be willing to help with this task. I'm not opposed to helping, although I am somewhat busy due to schoolwork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

:*Basically, the EoG is an extremely important work that has been covered in multiple formats: as work of literature, as a historical work, and as something that is sometimes referred to as a religious text. (Well, sort of. It's more something along the lines of The Illiad and the Odyssey, but it's used pretty heavily to teach about ancient religion. And we do have a page of Homeric characters.) This means that the characters have been covered in reliable sources to the point where many of them have articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to have a list page for these apart from the main page for the poem itself just as much as it makes sense to have lists for characters/people from other works, both religious and literary. I'm not necessarily arguing for the inclusion of this article (unless it gets cleaned up, upon which point it'd have to be renamed) but for inclusion of a list article along the lines I've mentioned above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

:*I'd also like to caution people about being a little too BITE-y. Some of the comments here are a little too unnecessarily harsh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Well, it isn't a wikt:concordance, is it? Nor a dictionary. Wiktionary is about words whereas Wikipedia is about topics. Here we have an index of topics. Some of the arguments above are rather crass and others are very lengthy so I'm glad Tokyogirl turned up to save us from complete embarrassment. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually from my perspective, I worked through the criticisms of User:Woodroar (and Мандичка also was a use of sorts, any input is better than none at all) to try to make a more acceptable article. At the time of the previous discussion, the article's state was more like just a straight list. The process of involvement in constructive criticism (or any criticism) served as impetus to improve the article, instead of editing becoming more lackadaisical. I have had to take a rest from editing for a while (a few days) so haven't worked on the article for a little period, and I might need to take a rest again sometime, though I'll make this article the priority while I have the energy to work on it, since it's under discussion, to find ways to improve upon it if there are any possible. Whalestate (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't a list, it's an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping. It seems as if User:Whalestate has cobbled together a bunch of sources to advance his own, idiosyncratic take on the epic--that's original research by synthesis, a violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition, Whalestate has used poor sources to create his essay--[http://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/Gilgamesh.pdf online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut], [http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2007/2/07.02.01.x.html lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools, who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level], and [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=46YITvNoR4UC&pg=PA48&dq=Epic+of+%7CGilgamesh+Scorpion+man&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yEFZVazEEs607Qbw9YOYCA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Epic%20of%20%7CGilgamesh%20Scorpion%20man&f=false a print-on-demand translation] by someone who has no apparent expertise in ancient Mesopotamia. Oh, and SparkNotes. Whatever is useful in this article could easily be put in Epic of Gilgamesh--except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh. Paul August ☎ 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • well I'm thinking it a rather shallow evaluation by Akhilleus.

His first statement an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. indicates a reason to keep the article, should that If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic. An article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is of course necessary since the main article doesn't contain any interpretation, or explanation or attempt at providing insight into what is is often regarded as the first great work of literature.

Akhilleus last comment:

{{quote|...except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic.}}

shows his lack of concern and conscientiousness in this issue, since, as I've already stated, there isn't any effort, what-so-ever to include interpretation in the main article, if he had looked for himself he would have seen this.

{{quote|As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping.}}

Is simply because the article is at a beginning stage, articles go through different levels of quality, that it is poorly written... other articles on wikipedia are classified poorly written, but retained, if they are valuable, in order to be improved. What grounds are there for deletion that couldn't be ignored if there were a concerted effort to improve the article? change the article title? All that is necessary is to identify whether the article is necessary, which it is, for the reasons I've indicated above (that there is nowhere any writing in wikipedia to assist the reader in understanding the Epic other than the article under debate here).

he has ignored the fact that the title might be changed to provide more meaning to the article

how many articles on wikipedia have begun which don't require improvement? Little more than a cursory glance around the most important articles on wikipedia would obviously show there isn't one article than began in a finished state, or something that needed little change.

It is easy for him to say I'm advancing my own agenda (but who in doesn't to some degree in any case? how many stereotypically altruistic monks and nuns participate in editing?) when he hasn't made any effort to contribute to the article, and so leaves me alone as the only contributor. So hastely he rushes in to condemn the article, without allowing any time for it to develop. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. shows he at least considers there might be some reason for the article to exist, but still thinks deletion is necessary... how so? Better to retain the article and so later merge the material into Epic of Gilgamesh if necessary, on the grounds he has indicated. It is obvious the article is necessary, or something like it, for now at least, since, how many people are familiar with the Epic and could find meaning within it without recourse to some explanation and insight from somewhere ? the article Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't contain any help in finding meaning for readers at all and is more of a structural analysis and summary of the work.

Also his indicating the criticism poor sources of these sources :

online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut

- and the criticism is...? I don't see any reason to think this is a poor source. Akhilleus hasn't actually provided a criticism of the quality of this source,he stated it is poor, but how?

lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level

- well, his criticism has no grounds for consideration because how does the intended use of the source disqualify the value of it?It doesn't disqualify it is the answer. The source must be intelligently written, for adult readers, so his criticism fails on this source (and it's Yale-Haven not Yale by the way).

- Oh, and SparkNotes

Sounds like someone scoffing, well, i don't concur that one editors (namely Akhilleus) personal opinion on the value of a source is sufficient grounds for devaluing the source. That Sparknotes was created by Harvard graduates at least indicates a degree of credibility, together with the fact that there is an actual wikipedia article on the site, which in itself shows they are significant enough to be included within wikipedia, but not as a source? why?

and finally my use of the print-on-demand translation source, amounts to one term < Ut-Napishtim >, which is the entire use of that source, which doesn't really indicate a crucial factor in the existence of the article, really, since that one word could just be removed.

His effort to criticise the article seem a petty effort to pick and shallowly locate any seemingly weak elements to the article, which altogether instead amounts to something which isn't constructive criticism but is half-hearted and seemingly lazily thought out. Whalestate (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • as a response to Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh from Paul August

this might very likely be a valid outcome for the article, but at this stage how is it possible to know whether it would be better to retain the article and have a briefer section in the Epic of Gilgamesh with this as the main article? until someone has made an effort to survey the existing sources to see the extent to which material exists on the subject of interpretation, or concepts, themes and ideas or the Epic, it would be too soon to pass judgement that deletion is the obvious and necessary thing to happen. Why exactly is deletion so necessary on the grounds to merge the material? since a new heading and section might be made to highlight the existence of this article in the Epic' article. This article was created on the 16th of May and only myself having worked on improving and adding to the article, I suggest giving more time to locate sources, and after an agreed time to then suggest a merge (of which there is a template for merging, and merging is a separate issue I feel, not indicating the necessity of deletion). If merge is the reason (and Paul August hasn't himself provided any reason for deletion, other than merging, then a discussion should be instigated on a merge proposal, without deletion, if merging is the only reason he could think of). Whalestate (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

:The problem with using lecture notes ought to be obvious to anyone who understands how to do research on academic topics. You look for high quality sources, that is, those written by experts and published by reputable journals or presses. This ensures that the sources have undergone critical scrutiny, ideally through peer review—this way, you know not only that the material has written by an expert, but it has been scrutinized by other experts in the topic. Lecture notes don't have that kind of quality control—you have no confidence that someone who's written a lecture on the Epic of Gilgamesh has studied the text in depth, let alone its social and cultural background, or that s/he knows how to read Sumerian or Akkadian. In addition, these are notes--not a polished argument, not a fully researched treatment. It's not hard to find a better source.

:The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute is "an educational partnership between Yale University and the New Haven Public Schools designed to strengthen teaching and learning in local schools..." Simply looking at the URL for this source tells us that the materials and the program are hosted at Yale, [http://teachers.yale.edu/league/ynhti/ looking farther] tells us that the program is run by Yale faculty. So, yeah, it's materials written by Yale for use by New Haven teachers. And it is not the kind of peer-reviewed academic source WP:RS tells us is the best to use--in other words, we want journal articles or books by experts in the subject.

:I have trouble believing that I'm seeing an editor defend the use of SparkNotes as a source. I think that speaks volumes about the care and effort that went into this "article". And yes, I am scoffing. That's the appropriate response to a type of source that I wouldn't have been allowed to use for a middle school essay.

:If epic of Gilgamesh is missing material on the interpretation of the text, that suggests that the place to start including that material in Wikipedia is in epic of Gilgamesh, not in a new article whose scope and purpose is unclear. Article space is not a place for developing rough drafts or vague articles that lack a well-defined topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

:It is too soon to know whether there is enough material online for the article to be greatly improved in any case, but I think the article is valid (for reasons already given in the previous response) if not perceived as very well defined. That the article is currently a rather loose effort to produce something worth-while shouldn't detract from the legitimacy of the article, because, if the article is important enough as an idea of something to provide information and knowledge to the general public, then effort should be made to reach a definition, and therefore boundaries for the article and a goal for locating material. There isn't an argument to make on the grounds of scope and purpose because the article could be redefined by a re-naming, which is simple enough. More-over, I don't perceive a lack of coherence in the material as a whole, both myself and Akhilleus (and who-ever else concerned) already know the article is about aiding understanding and making meaning apparent in study of the Epic of Gilgamesh. That sources specifically exist at all on this subject demonstrates the need for continuing with this article. In terms of the value of sources, this depends on whether further sources might be found to replace those thought insufficiently strong for inclusion, and I (or anyone else) haven't yet thought to do this. Whalestate (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unnecessary content fork, giving a short original-researchy digest (cited to publications which do not support the text) and listing a lot of red-linked names of "characters" which can not be presumed to be notable. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.