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. Sandstein 13:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onolatry[edit]

Onolatry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:DICDEF.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is short but has supplemental information and several good sources; expanded it a little. Topic is reasonably well covered in scientfic literature [1] and may easily be expanded further. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A bit beyond a DICTDEF, and there is scope for further improvement - this being a charge levied against Jews and early Christians and covered in depth in sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hundreds of sources easily found on Google Books and Scholar, and it wasn't hard for Elmidae and I to start expanding it beyond a definition. Note that WP:DICDEF is a policy on how to write articles, not a notability guideline; WP:BEFORE details the due diligence expected before opening a deletion discussion. FourViolas (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's sufficient depth in the sources to be a notable term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The first sentence is a bit of a problem since the point is that nobody actually did such a thing, but it's clearly a notable subject unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A perfectly adequate article, though on an odd subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all of the reasons mentioned here. This is a perfectly good article on a topic that extends far beyond a dictionary definition. P Aculeius (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I see where the nominator is coming from, this is not just a dictionary entry, and nor was it one even before the recent expansion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2018 (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.