Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana (Anglo-Saxon)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Mana (Anglo-Saxon)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Mana (Anglo-Saxon)}})

Single-sentence article about the one-off use of the term mana in discourse about Anglo-Saxon kingship.

The entire content of the article is:

{{talk quote|The word Mana has occasionally been used to describe the concept of life force {{cite book|author=Bates, Brian |title=The Real Middle Earth: Magic and Mystery in the Dark Ages |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BXRTMwCKDAcC&lpg=PA12&ots=WKe8D9TE4z&dq=bates%20middle%20earth%20mana&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=&f=false |publisher=Pan Books |year=2003 |page=12 | isbn=978-1-4039-6319-2}} or charisma,{{cite book |author=Chaney, William A. |title=The cult of kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: the transition from paganism to Christianity |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hka8AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA56&ots=uYtnXSvk7z&dq=mana%20anglo%20saxon%20life&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q=&f=false |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1970 |pages=55–56 | isbn=978-0-7190-0372-1}} in Anglo-Saxon culture.

{{reflist-talk}}

}}

For a more detailed rationale, see the talk page posts reproduced below:

{{talk quote|1=

Proposed Deletion

This article is factually incorrect from the start and has no way of being edited into a better form. The earliest reference from William Chaney does not support what the article asserts: that such a term as mana exists. It simply does not in Old English, nor is it used in discourse today. Chaney's book uses mana as it exists in Austronesian languages and nothing more. The more recent citation of Brian Bates is guilty of original research and is not reliable. ([http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HRYHNB6QIFJZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1403963193 A review from May 2014] shows some such issues.) Attempting to verify further, the word is not found in Bosworth-Toller ([http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/asearch?title_op=contains&title=mana&title_1_op=contains&title_1=&body_op=contains&body=&body_1_op=contains&body_1=&field_noun_value_many_to_one%5B%5D=1&items_per_page=20 a search] brings up unrelated things), nor does it come up in Grimm, Pollington, or even Germanic neopaganism sources. Additionally, the Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England made it so that Wodan did not matter as a god proper, but rather he was euhemerised for the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. Anything before Christianisation is poorly documented and belongs to prehistory. The example is thus flawed. Yugure (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

;merge with Mana

As the above discussion indicates, this article appears to be based on a confusion created by the use of the Polynesian word mana in anthropology as a generic term for social power, charisma etc. This usage of the word is already described in Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. There certainly does not need to be an entire article describing its application to a single culture. I therefore propose that this article be merged into the section Mana#The_academic_study_of_mana. --109.159.56.105 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

}}

The page had previously been redirected, but there's agreement that the redirect is not suitable (RfD). – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. – Uanfala (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uanfala's 2022 argument/proposal; factually incorrect stub best deleted. Klbrain (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per Uanfala and Klbrain. Agricolae (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• It's not worth merging this, because it is useless "word X has been used by source Y" rubbish. Ironically, the Chaney source in the first (complete) sentence of the page gives the actual words; and the source that it itself cites ({{JSTOR|1508079}}) could definitely make our mana article better. But this content could not, and it's not a distinct concept. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2022 (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.