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. asilvering (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambanteinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Stub consisting mainly of quotations from primary sources. Everything else is just a summary of Skírnismál. Only cites one secondary source, and beyond Pettit, the only thing that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [1] a single article in Dutch. Any other mention of gambanteinn on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR is little more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, and usually a small part of a much more general discussion of Skírnismál, Hárbarðsljóð, or North Germanic magic, such as [2]. Fails WP:GNG, and is too short to merge. On balance, sources seem to focus mostly on Skírnismál, so I think a redirect there would make the most sense - or perhaps to Seiðr. Masskito (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Poetry, Mythology, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete if no additional sources have been discovered during this AfD. I cannot find much myself. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addtion to the mentioned extended entry in Neophilologus, Gambanteinn also has an entry of around 2 pages in Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, p. 300-302. And many shorter other sources are by no means trivial mentions, like here on the etymology and here. So there's enough to establish notability in my view. Additionally, "too short to merge" does not make sense to me. While here we have at least one referenced sentence of definition, the two targets suggested by Masskito don't even have a mention yet, and are therefore not well-suited for a pure redirect; and List of mythological objects as alternative does at least have an entry on Gambanteinn, but that's both shorter and unreferenced. Daranios (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the Neophilologus article, as well as the sources found by Daranios. That's more than enough to pass WP:SIGCOV in my view. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Neophilologus article ensures WP:SIGCOV and notability is met. More work could be done on this article over time, it should be retained and not deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the sources mentioned by Daranios above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (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.