Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsvartnir

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amsvartnir[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This subject has only trivial mentions in secondary sources. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with just about every other place or thing in Norse myth, the article could easily be greatly expanded with this or that mention or line of inquiry. It also contains discussion unique to the location. There's no need to merge it into anything else and it shouldn't be deleted. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be a rather short topic, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability. The Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places, p. 19, has an entry and so I think we should, too. This has about half a page of etymological analysis, and this has some more. Both being very old, I expect that there is more up-to-date scholarly analysis out there. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (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.