Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Likhoradka

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. Tone 11:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likhoradka

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

dubious, unreferenced since early 2018 Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (see below). I'm pretty dubious about the veracity of this content, to say the least, although I'm open to being surprised and proven wrong. "Likhoradka" is a Romanization of the Russian Лихорадка, the perfectly normal everyday word for fever. This article posits an earlier meaning of that word as a type of evil spirit. If that's the case, I'd expect it to be much better documented that this appears to be! Mike Dixon-Kennedy's Encyclopedia of Russian & Slavic Myth and Legend is probably the best book-length scholarly treatment of Slavic myth, and there is zero mention of likhoradka or tryasavitsa within. I do see likhordka used in this sense (along with the connection to Chernobog) in the appendices of Gaja Jezernik Kos's books — but these are fictional works, and do not approach in any way a reliable source. Otherwise, these two spirit names show up here and there on self-published Wordpress sites and the like. I may be missing something here, but I really don't think so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is unsourced, but the subject is legitimate and can be easily sourced. One can check ru:Лихорадка (мифология) or even Google books [1],[2]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. That Russian article is pretty terrible by our standards. From what I can tell, the Vladimir Shuklin source looks pretty solid, and has gone through at least two printings; I'm willing to accept it sight-unseen as reliable. I'm worried about how many different terms are attributed to the same type of creature as well; there's a concern that the Russian article might be making a WP:COATRACK out of several mythological elements. Regardless, our English article is still terrible: the bit about Chernobog in particular doesn't appear to have any correspondence with the sourced Russian version. You're likely right that there's enough here to write an article, ideally in the hands of someone far more fluent in Russian than I am! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2019 (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.