Seventeen names arrived in this corpus from an aggregate list whose only citation for them was a source we do not accept — a content farm, a personal website, in one case a student project.
Deleting them would have been tidier and less useful. A reader who meets one of these names elsewhere deserves to find out exactly what it rests on. So we kept them, investigated each one, and wrote down the result.
Three of the source list's own links turned out to point at entirely unrelated articles — one to a letter pair, one to an academic degree, one to Islamic prayer. Those names had no supporting article at all.
This is real — but it is not a god.
The name is real, but it belongs to another category.
The census's only citation is a student virtual-classroom page. The ba is one of the components of the person in Egyptian thought — conventionally 'soul', represented as a human-headed bird — not a god. It appears throughout the funerary corpus as something a person HAS, not something worshipped.
What would settle it: Any standard treatment of Egyptian funerary belief; the term is ubiquitous in the Book of the Dead.
Wikipedia's own article — the census's source — describes Abtu as a sacred fish and as the name of the city of Abydos (Egyptian ꜣbḏw). A sacred fish that escorts the solar barque is a real element of the tradition, but it is an animal and a place name, not a named god.
What would settle it: Check the Abtu-fish references in the Book of the Dead solar-barque passages.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. Wikipedia's article of that title is about a Great Royal Wife of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty — a queen, not a goddess. Separately, iaret is the Egyptian word for the uraeus, the rearing cobra, which is personified and can carry divine associations.
What would settle it: Establish whether any text treats the uraeus under this name as a goddess in its own right, distinct from Wadjet.
This is a nickname for a god we already have, not a separate one.
A byname of a known god, not an independent deity.
Cited to godchecker.com, which is excluded. Wikipedia's own article describes Kemwer ('great black one') as an epithet of Horus, and separately as a name for a sacred bull of Athribis.
What would settle it: Find the epithet applied to Horus in a dated text, or the Athribis bull cult in a temple source.
Probably genuine, but nobody has yet shown us an ancient text that names it.
Described as deities by sources we do not accept. No primary attestation found yet.
Cited to worldhistory.org, which is edited but not a primary source. Described as a goddess credited as the mother of Imhotep in the Late and Ptolemaic periods — the deified mother of a deified man, which is a well-attested pattern in that period.
What would settle it: Ptolemaic material relating to the Imhotep cult, principally at Saqqara.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. Wikipedia describes Irer ('sight') as joining Sedjem, Hu, and Sia as creative powers. Hu (authoritative utterance) and Sia (perception) ARE well attested, so a pairing of personified senses is not implausible.
What would settle it: Look for the name alongside Hu and Sia in a Pyramid Text or Coffin Text spell.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. Described as 'hearing' personified, paired with Irer. Same reasoning as Irer: Hu and Sia are attested, so the class is real.
What would settle it: As Irer. Note the Budge-era spelling would differ (Setem or similar); search for that too.
Cited to worldhistory.org. Commonly described as a serpent figure associated with fire in the Pyramid Texts.
What would settle it: Search the Pyramid Texts serpent spells by utterance number.
Cited only to an excluded aggregator, and no Wikipedia article exists. A masculine/feminine pair of this shape fits the Hermopolitan Ogdoad pattern, where four male–female pairs personify aspects of the pre-creation state.
What would settle it: Compare against the standard Ogdoad rosters (Nun/Naunet, Heh/Hauhet, Kek/Kauket, Amun/Amaunet) and against Hermopolitan temple material.
We looked and found nothing. That is not proof it was invented — only that nothing we can check supports it.
Nothing found. Recorded as an open gap, not declared a fabrication.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. The census's own Wikipedia link resolves to the disambiguation page for the letter pair 'AA' — that is, there is no article about a deity of this name at all. No occurrence in any archived source text. Note that aa is a common Egyptian element meaning 'great', which is exactly the kind of fragment that can be mistaken for a name.
What would settle it: A search of Leitz's LGG, which indexes name-elements as well as names.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. The Wikipedia title is a disambiguation page unrelated to Egyptian religion. No occurrence in any archived source text.
What would settle it: The Amduat and Book of Gates rosters, once recovered from better scans; failing that, the LGG.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. The census's Wikipedia link resolves to an article on Islamic prayer — entirely unrelated, which means the census carries no supporting article for this name at all.
What would settle it: The LGG, or an Amduat roster hit.
Cited only to touregypt.net, which is excluded. No Wikipedia article. No occurrence in any archived source text. Described in circulation as a butler or cup-bearer of Ra.
What would settle it: Solar-barque crew lists in the Amduat, where attendant figures of this kind are named.
Cited only to godchecker.com, which is excluded. No Wikipedia article. No occurrence in any archived source text. The elements would read as something like 'great white one', which is a plausible epithet shape.
What would settle it: The LGG, which indexes epithets.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. No Wikipedia article. No occurrence in any archived source text.
What would settle it: The LGG. Treat together with Tenemu.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. No Wikipedia article. No occurrence in any archived source text. Almost certainly the same name as 'Tenem' above.
What would settle it: The LGG. Treat together with Tenem.
Cited only to a personal Weebly site. No Wikipedia article. No occurrence in any archived source text. The form suggests a compound with Isis, which would point to a late local manifestation rather than an independent goddess.
What would settle it: Ptolemaic temple material; the Isis entry's local-variation section is where it would land.
Our archived source texts are all Budge-era, so absence from them is weak evidence for a modern spelling — the same god may be written quite differently there. We search on consonantal skeletons to compensate, because Egyptian was written without vowels, but the method is coarse.
"Unsupported" means "no support found by these checks." It does not mean proven fabricated, and no entry here says otherwise.