Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xocotl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Singularity 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xocotl[edit]
No such god. Someone is apparently confused with Xocotl Huetzi, the name of a festival. I can find no verification for this on Google Books except "The Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons", which does not seem especially reliable. Ptcamn (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to have been an Otomi god (aka Otontecutli) very similar to Huitzilopochtli and subsequently assimilated. xocotl+otomi brings a few Google Books hits. In other words I find enough corroboration of the source you find doubtful to eliminate my doubts. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see that source and raise you
fourfive that say it's a classification of fruit. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- This seems to suggest that it can also refer to a deity. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An article in the Gale Encyclopedia of Religion ("Sacrament: An Overview", p. 7957) refers to Xocotl as a "tree god". Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this was one, but I'll go with the fruit. We don't have anything on the Otomi gods right now that I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see that source and raise you
- Keep per Dhartung. ShivaeVolved 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above, and adequate sourcing in article, though could use expansion. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Sourcing and establishing notability is good. Expansion/cleanup would be good for this article too. PrestonH 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cirt. Could use some expansion, but it's properly sourced, and has good potential. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:34, 14 December 2007 (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.