Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theonym


 * 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 No Consensus, defaults to keep. Nakon 01:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Theonym

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

this article is not even a stub, and should at best be a wiktionary entry μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think I'm fine with moving it to Wiktionary or whatever. I think I saw it on a request or something. Although if more can be said on it that's fine with me too.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (post)  @ 20:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Comment: I feel like there's an article in here somewhere... maybe create "Theonymics" with this content+ and redirect "Theonym" to it? Vrac (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep. This article is a spare stub, to say the least, but there is a topic here with loads and loads of reliable sourcing. I suspect that Vrac is correct regarding WP:MOSTITLE and the eventual article should be at theonymics. Whether what we have here is worth keeping is... a harder decision, although I tend to side with retention when there is plausible expansion. Not that we'd lose much here if otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete My sense echoes the comment above, except I lean a bit towards the delete, since my searches did not suggest there was much to the term, other than the definition the name of a god. The term is not used much in contemporary discourse. If I do an unfiltered search for just the term theonym I get entries like the Free Dictionary, and others, which simply reiterate the name of a god and that's that, suggesting the term is not encyclopedic, and it is hard to tell how many of these "sources" are copying Wikipedia. I don't have a sense that the term is used much except possibly in linguistic analysis of ancient languages and cultures, and even then, not used much. If we create theonymics, what would that be about? There is a possible source here and a brief mention here, and a mention in an obscure book here. Overall I am not enthusiastic about this topic given the paucity of sources, lack of interest, and if we did keep it all we could write about it would be a dictionary definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (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.