Deletion of Therianthropy

Comment: If what we have here is a modern incarnation of totemism and shamanism and it is practiced by a sizable group of people that prefer this term then who cares that it is a neologism (if it even is one). A good comparison is Wicca as the modern incarnation of witchcraft, Wicca having 50 years behind it. It all boils down to . The article may need , , and  tags but I would like to see if it develops
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: This article is a neologism of the neologism Otherkin. Therianthropy is a made up word by an internet group as stated in the body of the article: ''In the early days of the Usenet group alt.horror.werewolves (around 1992), the members discussed fictional shapeshifters. Some users began to publicly claim that they considered themselves to be partially non-human animal. A number were only joking, but enough people were serious about it, and claimed this was their personal understanding and experience of themselves, that it became the subject of ongoing discussion Initially such people called themselves lycanthropes, but as that word more accurately describes wolf-people, therianthropes was chosen as a more general term.'' At first glance the article seems very legit (the authors have done an excellent job of presentation) and the author even goes so far as to try and apply his neologism in a "Scholarly" context but once you begin to read it the fact that it is a vanity article created by a "community" of people attempting to create a scientific or legit sounding name to their...belief system is rather obvious. There are no |reliable sources, no |verifiable claims of |notability, it is written in a POV|POV tone, and serves as nothing more than a OT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|soapbox. A gross (if not attractive) violation of OT
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N||WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Yes, therianthropy is a combination of the greek words for beast and man. I can't find any academic use of the term and wikpedia is #Wikipedia is not a dictionary|not a dictionary. There is already a article on shapeshifting. Yes, it is popular on the internet as a |neologism. I also have no doubt that this AfD will soon be kneedeep in furrie meatpuppetry but AfDs are not a vote, you have to have a reason besides "fursecution!" or "I like this article". We'll see I suppose
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEO)

Comment: I was considering weakening my keep based on a poor Google performance of therianthopy. Therianthropic does much better but also gets more into the existing unrelated scholarly usage. Therian does much much better but has other meanings also and is a proper name to boot. ('''edit:''' strike that, I do not know what I was searching on earlier today) So I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking regarding otability, i.e. that it is a very small group seeking to legitimize the term they have adopted for themselves. Upon reflection, my guess is that the interest is broad enough to warrant inclusion. The other option is to create an article for therian, which, as a term, seems to have much more popularity among the community but then what would you call their belief system, totemism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It was my understanding that the word was not made up by the Usenet furries, but rather just adopted by them. The beginning of the article seems to say that it is a more general term for animal people, encompassing werewolves and such. I'm refraining from voting either keep or delete; The term, subcultural use, and variations thereof are pretty popular on the internet, but I'm not sure how much of the subject would be reported on in |verifiable sources, even moreso considering Wikipedia's bias against things having to do with the internet. I agree that the article is in gross need of work and NPOVifying. ('''edit: additional comment&mdash;''' note that the hugely disproportionate amount of furries on Wikipedia are going to flock to this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)