Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoth-Amon


 * 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 and redirect to The Phoenix on the Sword. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoth-Amon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional character. The article has been tagged as no source since 2009, so there's nothing in the article that will help editors hunt down potential sources. This is a mirror. A WP:BEFORE search is turning up mirrors like the own above, blogs, online forums, and wikis. This appears to be unrelated, as the snippet I can get translates to "which would be the equivalent of a Thoth-Amon (1), but it does not seem that this name was used in ancient Egypt; here again it should be noted that despite the popularity of Hermes in Egypt Roman, its inhabitants," which doesn't seem relevant. I'm not seeing any evidence that Thoth-Amon passes WP:GNG, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. If that one quoted source is somehow relevant, then maybe this dude is notable, although I'm not convinced it's relevant. Hog Farm Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lenghty WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in classic fancruft style we lack anything near the sourcing to justify the length of the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause and we should not hold on to clearly substandard articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete based on a search for sources, with no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Article cannot meet the WP:GNG even with best efforts. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Phoenix on the Sword as a WP:CHEAP alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R. I searched a couple times in the past, and I never found anything to support a standalone article.  It's a valid search term, though, and this target provides the most relevant information for a reader, being the original Howard work he was in.  The articles for works that used him later don't have much info other than he was there. -2pou (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Could not find sources to support reliability.Alex-h (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2020 (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.