Deletion of Pictish Mithraism

Comment: possibly userify) -- Despite the large number of citations, I believe this is either  or  or something of that kind.  As far as I know, direct evidence of the nature of Pictish religion is very scanty.  It all comes down to interpretation of what the symbols reresent, which is essentially a matter of speculation.  I have no doubt that much academic speculation has taken place.  Mithraism was a late Roman religious cult of oriental origins and popular among the army.  It is thus unlikely that its adherents should ahve converted the Picts, who were a barbarian enemy of Rome, at least inthe eyes of the soldiers.  On the otehr hand, it might be possible to restructure the article into one on Pictish symbols, if we really do not have one already.  That would be the sole purpose of userifying it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I think what you've made clear is that you were hoping to use your article to publicise your idea. That's not an unusual misconception, but Wikipedia is definitely not a place for original ideas. If you get a book published in accordance with  and if it is then taken up and gets some significant notice (see  and associated guidelines), then maybe we can have an article about your book. But until there is discussion in mainstream sources about Pictish Mithraism, as an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources (as per  have to say about a subject, this article fails to meet our criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:RS)

Comment: This article contains info and references about both Pictish symbols and Mithraism. It brings the info together to present what Norman Penny has called a "unique decoding". Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, Norman. I wonder whether you have read the policy page , which states (Section 2.2): "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information...If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals…" I think the page should probably be moved into Pictish-mithraism's user page, so that usable information contained in it will still be on hand and can be added e.g. to Pictish stones. But this should not be done in a way which would make Pictish stones a platform to argue or promote a new paradigm. A page called "Pictish symbols" would probably duplicate the topic area of Pictish stones, as the "stones" seem to be the main medium through which the "symbols" have reached us
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)