Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piltzintecuhtli

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piltzintecuhtli[edit]

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

Has been classified as confusing or vague for over a month no that much information on it...you can try to improve it but difficult to do so. Whenaxis (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wrong forum for cleanup. Sources back up the "existence" of this mythological figure, the article's vagueness should be raised elsewhere. --Pgallert (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has two reasonable references, which is about two more than a lot of other articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the result is "Keep", then Piltzintecuhtli should probably be added to {{Navbox Aztec mythology}} … Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
- Done – Since the outcome looks like a Done Deal, I went ahead and added it. — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable and encyclopedic. I bet Simon or a few of the experts have something on it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't had a chance to check my library yet but a quick look on Google Scholar was enough to show that Piltzintecuhtli is often regarded as separate from Xochipilli and that sufficient material for expansion of the article is available - and the chances are I have more info on my bookshelves. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2010 (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.