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 keep. Discussion about merging or rewriting can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maya priesthood

[edit]

Seems to be text that explains the religion of the Mayas; nothing links to it; it is written in sort of a dialog tone; may have other issues ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has lots of reliable sources that confirms its verifiability and indicate its notability. Just because its a bad article doesn't mean its delete-worthy. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong merge to Mayan religion which would be the correct title and already exists. It is that which has more sources and notability. Unless we want a separate one entitled Mayan priesthood (proper grammar)- but it seems likely from the title that this is WP:OR, and if anything of it is notable/verifiable/not conjecture it should be merged to Mayan religion, otherwise, delete. Sticky Parkin 22:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maya religion, which is a more presentable article than this one. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect despite the 3 references (note they are just to different pages of the same books), wikipedia is WP:NOT for homework assignments and essays. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This does seem to be referenced text on an aspect of Maya religion that contains information not present in that article. While I agree that redirection would be appropriate, I think that at least partial merger should be considered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge though alternatively the article could be rewritten as a proper encyclopedia article. The main article appears to have been started nicely, but needs continuing and expansion. DGG (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and do not merge. It is probable that this is a WP:SUP. Recently at WikiProject Mesoamerica we have been facilitating one of these exercises with KU (see here), and I suspect this contribution is one of those. If so WP:MESO will be happy to take responsibility for getting it up to wikipedia styling & conventions. The topic is a valid one, and I do not favour a merge with Maya religion (itself not a great article, has its deficiencies & holes ATM) since although thematically related it's not synonymous and is an aspect that can easily stand on its own accord. The article is not original research since I can vouch the information can be found in a host of published reliable sources, and I doubt that it is a copyvio. While it needs a name change and prose, stylistic and formatting overhauls to bring it into line with usual wiki material, that's something can can be worked on and not a sufficient reason to delete or redirect. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article certainly has significant editorial issues, poor style and lack of wikification are not grounds for AfD. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, well written article can follow. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2008 (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.