Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana (Anglo-Saxon)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mana (Anglo-Saxon)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Single-sentence article about the one-off use of the term mana in discourse about Anglo-Saxon kingship. The entire content of the article is:

For a more detailed rationale, see the talk page posts reproduced below:

The page had previously been redirected, but there's agreement that the redirect is not suitable (RfD). – Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. – Uanfala (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Uanfala's 2022 argument/proposal; factually incorrect stub best deleted. Klbrain (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Uanfala and Klbrain. Agricolae (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not worth merging this, because it is useless "word X has been used by source Y" rubbish. Ironically, the Chaney source in the first (complete) sentence of the page gives the actual words; and the source that it itself cites  could definitely make our mana article better.  But this content could not, and it's not a distinct concept.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2022 (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.