List of Proto-Indo-European deities : This column is a WP:POVFORK of Proto-Indo-European mythology .  The additional list columns are the name column, which gives unattested names to the various reconstructed gods.  For the most part researchers are unable to reconstruct these names, and assigning them proto-indoeuropen words for their names is WP:OR and would relie on WP:SYNTH , except that none of these are sourced.  Likewise the possible descendants lists are unsourced, and largely reliant on WP:OR .  There are commonalities, but tracing these back to PIE roots is often speculative and goes beyond the sources.  After the list there are various notes, again with a mix of sourced info and WP:OR , but the sourced information belongs in the mythology article (and is there) and this does not belong in a purported list article.   Lastly, this page is unnecessary because a more careful treatment of the information already exists in Proto-Indo-European mythology .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Mythology .  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology as an WP:ATD .  Sirfurboy's argument is compelling, but I feel redirect is sufficient here, and will also help readers who may expect this page to exist.  — siro χ o 03:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong oppose that article is quite long and difficult to parse for someone who just wants to see a simple list of possible deities.  The two articles serve fundamentally different purposes and if you think the list doesn’t serve it’s purpose well then you should edit it so that it serves it better.  Immanuel le ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not that difficult to parse, and the reconstructed pantheon is found in section 4 of that article under pantheon, each deity with a sub heading, labelled in English and with a discussion of what can be reconstructed regairding their names.  The difference is that article is more careful about the reconstructed naming of the gods, being faithful to considerable uncertainty in the sources.  Your page is full or WP:OR which is why it does not add value, but rather it confuses the issue.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] People read and think differently, so there is accessibility merit to having information presented in multiple ways.  In your opinion, is the list article something that could be improved by using similar information as the prose article?  — siro χ o 02:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One possible resolution that comes to mind is to make the list into a proper list.  Strip it of most informational content and just leave a least of possible reconstructed deities.  Av = λv ( talk ) 07:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the Pantheon section of Proto-Indo-European mythology .  Both the list and the aforementioned section go over the same topic with similar information.  They are also bound to drift apart over the years (as they already did) and the differences may be confusing to readers of both, unless an editor diligently synchronizes them.  However, I would not go as far as calling the list a WP:POVFORK and I can understand the motivation behind it.  Av = λv ( talk ) 07:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This set is broad.  Clearly deserves stand-alone article.  Raymond3023 ( talk ) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is broad, but it is also conjectural.  Where is the evidence any deity was actually called *H₂eryo-men, for instance?  The asterisk tells us this is a reconstructed word, and if you follow the link to the *H₂eryo-men page you find that this, like many of the others, is sourced to Mallory and Adams' Encylopedia of Indo-European Culture .  A good source, but misquoted consistently.  For *H₂eryo-men, all they say is (in the much longer medical god entry) Another possible mythic reflection of a healing deity may be seen in the Indo-Iranian Aryaman-Airyaman and the Irish Eremon « *h4erjo-men-).  And that is it.  The entry is clear that there is merely a conjectured link, based on linguistics, that an Indo-Iranian god shares a common source with an Irish one.  The entry in Mallory and Adams is good, because it provides a conjecture as conjecture, and it lists the reconstructed proto indo-european word as a word, not as the name of the deity, about which we know nothing at all.  We don't know if such a deity existed.  We don't know if it was treated in terms of animism instead of deity, we don't know if the Indo-Iranian deity was named for a word and the Irish one too.  We certainly don't know why this page doesn't describe this as a medical god but lists various other things instead.  All that is said is that the existence of gods in two separated cultures points to some common root.  What that root is remains conjectural, and no-one in any source says that the name of the PIE god was therefore *H₂eryo-men.  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú where the same arguments were applied and consensus was to delete that page.  So, yes, you looked at this page and in perfectly good faith have said that this is a broad set of information.  On the face of it, it is, but I hope it is now also clear that it is also a nonsense as it is presented here, and a good set of nonsense remains nonsense.  Those who have argued for a redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology have the right of it.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Sirfboy above.   This layout obscures the important difference between those (few) entries that are confidently reconstructed by most/all reliable sources and those that are rank speculation.   Not usable in this form.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to reduce a topic as complex as this to list format, even ignoring the obvious WP:OR elements involved.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 17:22, 22 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect