Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therianthropy (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therianthropy (mythology)

Therianthropy (mythology) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Del as clean-cut original research. While Therianthropy survived its vote for deletion on shaky grounds as a term traced 100 years ago and a modern 'net subculture, this taxonomy article is complete OR. The provided references do speak about lycantropy, verevolves, etc., but they don not say about theriantropy, hence, the whole article is 100% original fancruft to be deleted. Mukadderat 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uncertain is this something that could be merged with Otherkin? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh noes. While the article in its current form is much different from the version that went to AfD before it would behoove editors to review that previous AfD before adding to this one. It will also help to check out the "other" Therianthropy article and it's relavent history.NeoFreak 13:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Therianthopy might deserve an entry in the dictionary but not here. The term is a real term but is not used by the academic community. What this article is refering to is anthropomorphism and shape shifting. The term terianthropy is being plugged these days by a group of folks on the internet that think they are animals are part animal or can transform into an animal, etc. The standard Usenet werewolf type crowd. So while the term is correct the problem is that sources being taken and then twisted in order to apply to the term "therianthropy". It's like reverse research (creation science?). You'll find that almost none of the sources cited use the term, it's an origianl research, neologism that's pretty much unverifiable. NeoFreak 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At first blush it looks like the article is fairly well-written and referenced, but as argued above, the references are about the related topics of lycanthropy and the like - they do not deal with the subject of therianthropy. That leaves us with a pretty clear-cut case of WP:SYN. I'm not certain that any of this info can be merged anywhere, either. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have to go delete here. There is a vast minority of furry fans who follow this line of thought, but I'm nto sure that the article, in its current state, meets WP:N. Certainly original research. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's OR to claim that references talking about X are applicable to Y as well. PubliusFL 20:14, 28 March 2007 (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.