Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mythology

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mythology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mythology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mythology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mythology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Mythology

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 redirect‎ to Maat. asilvering (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feather of Maat

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

This article is currently sourced to two youtube videos. The information seems accurate, but upon searching myself, I can find many reliable sources (i.e. reputable organizations) describing Maat and mentioning the feather as an aside, but nothing going into detail about the feather. I'm not sure if this needs its own article -- it seems as if it just describes what "Ma'at" and the ritual are again, even though those are already covered in other articles. Unless there are sources going into more detail on the feather, I'm not sure if it needs a whole article rather than just a mention that Maat's symbol was the feather. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Egypt. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Also, take a look at the creator's talk page - User_talk:علي_بدر_العتيبي#Clarification_of_Contributions_and_Assumption_of_Good_Faith. It looks like they are making random articles and mixing them with articles that might be paid for. Charlie (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I can't think of a lot of people who would be willing to pay for an article on a symbol from ancient Egyptian religion. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maat. It seems likely that this is best covered within the context of Maat. That would be my conclusion on I can find many reliable sources (i.e. reputable organizations) describing Maat and mentioning the feather as an aside, but nothing going into detail about the feather, rather than deletion, as WP:AtD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranios (talk • contribs)
Redirecting makes sense to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (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.

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 merge‎ to Kythira#Mythology (selectively). (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cytherean

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

Per WP:NOTDICT, likely fails WP:GNG as well. A significant portion of the article's content is unsourced and likely WP:OR and is of minimal encyclopedic value; the remaining content could easily be merged into the primary Venus article as a brief section about nomenclature. Ark Hyena (they/any) 06:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it's quite a pretty article, but ArkHyena is right; all but one of the sources is a dictionary (not a great sign). The bits that are less dictionary-like are, unfortunately, written in the tone of a lecturer giving a light afternoon public talk, and unsourced (e.g. "...was felt to be unfortunately similar to "aphrodisiac", again evoking sex rather than astronomy"... was felt by whom? where did this come from?). Elemimele (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps a redirect/partial merge to Kythira#Mythology would serve? Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Greece. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kythira#Mythology Agree with application of WP:NOTDICT. As for whether to redirect to Kythira#Mythology, we lack a high-quality reliable source to supplement that section with discussion of the adjectival shift among astronomers. We could instead have the wikilinks to this article on Venus and List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies go the wikitionary entry for "Cytherean" for the reader curious about the relation but lacking an OED subscription. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Andrew's reference to pages 316-317 of Sagan and Shklovsky's 1966 book are enough to include it in that mythology section, which I'll do now. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verifiable parts; anything that can be verified and seems germane to the use of the term relative to Venus (the planet or the goddess) should be kept, unless it duplicates something already there. I expect that some reliable source will at least have mentioned why some people prefer or once preferred this to Venerean, even if it's not encyclopedically explained here. P Aculeius (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article dates from almost twenty years back and our norms on citing (or on tone...) weren't quite as they are now, unfortunately! Interesting trip down memory lane to salvage this one.

I think it originally came from Sagan & Shklovsky's "Intelligent Life in the Universe" (1966) - I dug that out tonight and confirmed it has a section by Sagan discussing this. He seems to have had fun, describing 'venerean' as "preempted by other areas of human activity", 'venusian' as "a barbarism", 'aphrodisian or aphrodisial' as having "other connotations, which some astronomers, in the interests of clarity and decorousness, prefer to avoid". So "people didn't want to use the terms that were associated with sex" comes straight from Sagan, who I think we can take as a fairly solid source, rather than being original research.

I'm happy for it to be merged elsewhere - no strong preferences on where that might be - but I've given it a going over tonight to remove some of the cruft and cite it a bit more clearly by modern standards, and hopefully that will be useful wherever it ends up. The dictionary refs were added at a later date I think just to source the pronunciations; not sure they're needed but have left them in. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2025 (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.

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. We certainly have consensus that this article is not presently in a good state. I don't really understand the merge suggestion - there's no room for anything like this in the target list, and it's already mentioned there. A WP:BLAR or stubification is probably in order, but I'll leave that up to regular editing, since the overall feeling here is "meh". asilvering (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domdaniel

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

No significant coverage for this fictional place. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is hard here, because domdaniel is also a word meaning "a den of inquiry",[1]. There's also a WP:NOTDIC issue here where the article just extracts WP:OR of various times the word has been used. It seems to have been coined in One Thousand and One Nights, so there could be a valid WP:ATD as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of mythological places as an WP:Alternative to deletion. This is a relevant place in two works of fiction, which is referenced in a number of younger works of fiction as can be seen in the number of primary and secondary sources both present in the article and especially those appearing in the WP:BEFORE search. This role and connectivity in my view goes beyond a dictionary definition, so this should have some place on Wikipedia. Presence in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable indicates that as well. There's a rather extensive discussion in this paper on the Thalaba version. Oriental influences in the English Literature of the early nineteenth century, p. 25, discusses the Arabian Nights - Thalaba connection. Britain and the Muslim World, p. 132 has an interesting one-sentence-comparison to Hogwarts. The secondary sources I've seen in a brief search are short on the Domdaniel beyond the specific work of Thalaba, so I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted so far, but deletion would be a loss. Daranios (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

....or weak keep concurring with Hannes Röst. At least Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs has an additional background on etymology beyond what's in the other sources or the Merriam-Webster entry. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is severely unsourced, but there are many sources about the subject in Google Books and on the web. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep : the problem with subjects like this is that we require reliable secondary sources, not just usage of the term in primary works of fiction/poems/tales. So preferably a (scholarly) discussion about the place, not just evidence that the word is used by someone. I found [2] [3] [4] (probably there are more) on top of the three sources found above which is not as in depth as I would like but at least there are multiple independent secondary sources on this topic which should be enough for a short article. --hroest 13:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Any sources I found only mention this term briefly, and not in a consistent way. Sometimes I do see the connectivity but a lot of times I don't. I prefer WP:ATD and we could group these together somehow, if someone can parse out when a mention is related and when it's not. Archrogue (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article is a terrible, undereferenced mess. Sources above are meh, as admitted even by the editosr who found them. Np prejudice to seeing this improved, sure, but in the current form it is unacceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note this - Whether the article has many references or not is not an issue. As long as the subject is notable, they can be found and added. Can we have a proper evaluation of the sources discussed per policies?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to the list article, per Achrogue. There is evidence that this subject exists and is covered, but it's not clear to me as it stands that these references can be parsed together in a way to make an article about it in a coherent way - which the article as it stands very clearly is not. As an ATD, a redirect and merge to the list article seems logical. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 01:17, 2 June 2025 (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.