Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishat


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ishat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very minor God in the Canaanite Pantheon. Listed already at Canaanite religion, and best left there. Contested PROD. Leave as redirect to Canaanite religion. (Note, I added the info to Canaanite religion after PROD was contested, otherwise would have been a CSD A10). Ravendrop (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete if that is all that is known about her. The sentence is already in the other article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source is a personal website, which fails the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, no longer listed on that article, addition was reverted through lack of reliable source.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any reliable sources, in fact even the blog based stuff is pretty thin on the ground and usually talking about something else or a close but unrelated spelling. Must be a really minor god. Unless a subject matter expert can point to academic work saying otherwise, I can't verify the existence of the God so no grounds for an article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Would these||1||2||3 be considered reliable sources? Anyway, if you're going to write off this goddess as apocryphal, you might want to remove the reference to her in the Anat article. N3philim (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this field, but I would suggest those refs are good enough to support putting the line back into the Pantheon page linked above as demonstrating such a God existed. But as all three just quote the same single line with no further detail at all, I can't see there is anything here to support an article, so this AfD is still a delete for me.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those would count as reliable sources, personal website almost never do. If you want to add those in, fine, I'll change my vote to Redirect with the condition that if more information can be found, then I would support a separate article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.