All dictionaries seem to define eponyms as words named after people or a person.

If selenography is an eponym, are gods people?

is Santa Claus (aka Kris Kringle, father chrismas,etc) a person?

is a person only someone that we have proof once lived and died?(so do Adam and Eve (or other mythical/traditional 'first people") lose personhood?

We might not believe in Zeus, or Jupitor, or Jove or Mars, but at one point people did. they considered their gods real.

Now, if we discussed religion, we could discus did they consider their gods "people" (but we don't discuss religion, not even ancient ones) but, for the purposes of language, i think we can accept ancient gods as people!

Many eponyms are based on characters of fiction. Why should characters of myth or religion be excluded from being 'people'?

Perhaps the dictionary is wrong. After all, it never talks with anyone! It's just a list of words, and it doesn't know how to use them, just define them. Hence: Perhaps an eponym is a word derived from the name of a . . . Personality, rather than a person. Since there is obviously room for disagreement over what a person is (factual or fiction, veracious or mythic), then with "Personality", why that takes us a step away, and possibly "above" mere persons, to an ultimate (or more ultimate, possibly even most ultimate) Source, at which there ought be no quibbling over actuality or potentiality, just - absolute - Personality.