Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese mythology

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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vietnam, or specifically as mentioned here, its ethnic majority, the Kinh people, do not have well-documented mythology. All the sources used in this article only demonstrate what should fall under the category of "legend" and "folklore" - inherited stories that may or may not be true, or involve fantasy elements. The Vietnamese lack any well-established pantheon and they worship no gods, such as the sun god (Helios, Apollo, Ra, Amaterasu, etc.), the moon god (Diana, Tsukuyomi, etc.). There's no known credible creation myth that describes how the world or the country was created. Mythology in Vietnam is only established among ethnic minorities (the Rade people for example), and if this article can't provide any information concerning that, it should not be kept. The Vietnamese corresponding article is not a helpful and confident source either as it's extremely poorly sourced. Various accounts have also been established, for example this one, but those are highly dubious, poorly described, not based on any citable extensive research, and riddled with elements imported from Chinese myths which begs the question about their legitimacy Fumiko Take (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment none of that sounds like a reason to delete the article. Legends and folklore can obviously be covered in a mythology article. That there is no systematic system of mythology is not reason to not cover the existing mythology of Vietnam. That there is no such systematic system seems to make the case that it is even more important to have a general overview article, instead of less so, since there would not be a systematic system article to refer to (unlike say an article on Shintoism, instead of Japanese mythology in general). Indeed, it is the nature of people that there would not be a systematic system of mythology, since such a system is unnatural as mythology develops locally, while religion is what systematizes local myths. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has clear scholarly relevance (see e.g. the explicit references to Vietnamese mythology [1],[2],[3] and [4]). I prefer not to comment on the nomination's arguments and overall tone. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree with above comments, and dictionary has both legends and folklore listed as synonyms for mythology. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First of all, as Seraphim System and the person using the IP address 70.51.200.162 pointed out, our core readers -- students -- do not differentiate between myth, urban legend, mythology, folklore, and fairy tales. I've been a grammar-warrior teacher for two decades, and even I'm not that pedantic. Secondly, as the user with the IP 84.73.134.206 pointed out, the nom appears not even to have searched online for potential reliable sources, of which significant coverage in multiple reliable sources exists. Third, this is part of a series of articles, such as Sailors' superstitions, Philippine mythology, etc., in which folklore, tales, and myths blend into one another. Removing one article for one nation or culture not only targets that one, but also ask not for whom the bell tolls. The loss of one article in a series makes the whole collection less useful for our core readership because of the lack of context. Knowledge of content is quite useless without context; having articles on Thai folklore and Chinese mythology without a corresponding article one on Vietnam makes the individual articles less comprehendible. Finally, the nom seems to lack any concept of the syncretism inherent and common in Southeastern Asian cultures; see, e.g., Culture of the Philippines. They all shares cultural affinities and use the same folk medicine; see e.g., Blumea balsamifera. This is an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2017 (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.