Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrmomancy

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Myrmomancy}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Myrmomancy}})

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well Lewis Spence thinks that it's encyclopaedic, at least, as xe gave it an article in xyr own encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Gah! I take this back. I peered at the blurred letters again, and I think that it actually says myomancy, the one with mice. Mice! Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. While the deletion nominator may have done a poor job of arguing for it, a quick search reveals no sign of notability (nada from GScholar, and nothing reliable or notable from Google). Or a reliable source on the subject. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• That mush have been a very quick search, as it took me about a minute to find the aforementioned encyclopaedia and scroll down its index to find myrmomancy on page 281. It actually took longer to check out the credentials of the author. I can only see the index, though, and I might be misreading the page number as the text is somewhat blurred. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'll admit to have paid much more attention to the GScholar search than the Google one (consequence of where I normally edit), but all I got on the Google search were some highly questionable blogs/how-to New Age-y websites; in other words, nothing that would pass as reliable. I do wonder if any of those mentions predate the Wikipedia article. The below proposal to redirect is reasonable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• It turns out that this was the one with mice. Search engine fuzzy matching + anti-aliased fonts + tiny little letters in the first place. Lewis Spence actually wanted to combat the questionable stuff, and would have been fairly reliable had xe had it. I wasn't going for the rubbish WWW sites. ☺ Mice! Uncle G (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to Methods_of_divination#T, I don't see notability here either. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• "T"? ☺ It's true that "X is a special kind of Y which in turn is a special kind of Z" does apply to more than just one X, and one book that I found that I wouldn't use, because the author does not seem to be an expert in the field, does give a long laundry list of "-mancy"s. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per Reywas92. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We do not need seperate articles on every term used when we can describe them in a broader more comprehensive article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, a general lack of demonstrated notability, and a general lack of evidence that this is not a thing which was made up one day. jp×g 07:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:ONEDAY and WP:NOTDIC. While there is weak evidence that divination using ants is a thing, there isn't any evidence that this is an accepted name for it. There isn't even evidence to suggest that this is an accepted word - it does not appear in any reliable dictionaries. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.