Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid problem

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 delete. The oppose votes are stronger here. They point out serious flaws that this article has with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which were not adequetely refuted by the keep side. The vague wave to WP:IAR was ignored; a clear rationale has to be presented for invoking it, which was not presented here. NW (Talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid problem

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

NOTE: This was previously nominated for deletion and closed "no consensus" in 2006. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mermaid_Problem Perhaps someone could update box and remove my comment once fixed.--Milowent (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a funny article, it doesn't cite any reliable sources and is just a compilation of OR. It deserves to be deleted and buried on Wikipedia:Silly Things.--The lorax (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly reasonable subject form an article. I've added the Rescue tag, the existing references and this article [1] may be a good place to start in dealing with the rash of cite tags in the lede. Artw (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also was there not a previous AfD of this resulting in keep? Has the article been moved since? Artw (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous AfD was "no consensus". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i cant find any reliable sources referring to this. it may in fact be a neologism partially propagated by the apperance of this WP article. probably deserves a brief mention in the main article, though, if anyone can find a reference to it outside of cartoons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be lots of material discussing the sexuality of mermaids and the intercourse aspect is naturally covered by this. For example, see Overview of Critical Interpretations of The Little Mermaid. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, never nominate an article for deletion simply because of some suggested guideline. "Wikipedia is not a series of rules" is one of the founding unbreakable policies. And there does seem to be plenty of mention of this, it discussed in many places, including many notable works of fiction. Dream Focus 21:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR is an official Wikipedia policy though. This article seems to typify this section of the policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.--The lorax (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are A, B and C in this case? Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, source A explains the biology of a mermaid and then the article extrapolates what that means without a reliable source. h2g2 is also not a reliable source.--The lorax (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR states if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore it. This is one of those cases. The article should stay, rules be damned. And Ignore All Rules is a policy. Dream Focus 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are a pretty big deal, and I don't think we should go around ignoring them for favoured articles. However since the FT cite [2] tackles the subjetc matter head on they are not really an issue here (Further cites to back that up would of course be a good idea though). BTW, the FT site seems to dislike direct linking, so to view the full article you may have to go to the Articles list [3] and click "Mermaids In Myth and Art". Artw (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but take some serious pruning shears to that "Examples" (aka "In popular culture") section. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be legitimately sourced, excluding the examples section, (which looks like it wouldn't be that much) into mermaid, then delete. I don't doubt that there are critical studies of mermaid myths and modern mermaid stories which address the issue, but there don't seem to be any that call this issue "the mermaid problem," meaning that the name given to the article is not appropriate even if the issue itself has some notability. (And the "Examples" section reads more like a TV Tropes article. Nothing wrong with TV Tropes, but TV Tropes and Wikipedia have different standards, and you shouldn't confuse one for the other. TV Tropes (which takes a much lighter approach towards article naming) already has a Mermaid Problem article, anyway.) Chuck (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MAD which explains why merge and delete is not a satisfactory combination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Comment adjusted accordingly. Chuck (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much original research. Well written essay, though. --John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains useful information on a topic of interest to many people (while people who are not interested in the subject are not obligated to read it -- if there can be Wikipedia articles on Klingon Language and Klingon culture, then certainly an article on mermaid reproduction is not too unreasonable). This article has many citations to relevant examples in the media. Its title should be changed, however, to something more descriptive, and the discussion should contain only facts supported with citations to reliable sources, rather than the author's personal observations, theories, or opinions. The entire article could be merged and become a subsection of the main Mermaids topic (which in effect, it already is, but on a different Web page.) In any event, the facts, images, links, and citations in this article should be preserved, either in a renamed article, or as a subsection of the Mermaids article. 69.108.13.103 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*This vote appears to be invalid given that the user has made only 1 edit.--The lorax (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

That's called an ad hominem argument and it's not good logic. Experience is irrelevant in AfD debates. The contributor either made a valid argument or they didn't. A user called Don'tDeleteMermaidProblem could make an argument and if they're polite and refer to policy then they deserve as much respect and consideration as an admin with 60,000+ edits. See WP:ADHOM, which will also give you several more persuasive ways to rebut the contributor above's arguments.- DustFormsWords (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Dust, and I struck it from the record. No disrespect intended, 69.108.13.103.--The lorax (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. And that's some awesome recent work on Ferris Bueller's Day Off. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while mermaids are a genuine encyclopedic topic, the alleged "mermaid problem" is not; this is just an essay drawing together bits and pieces from here and there, and as such OR even if some of the statements are sourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and a WP:CFORK of the valid topic of mermaids. This is a personal essay, better hosted elsewhere - not wikipedia. Verbal chat 13:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure synthesis essay. Ridernyc (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior AfD in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid Problem, where keep !votes determined that this is not OR. This is an age old dilemma, as I learned in middle school: "Indian goes up to a mermaid and says 'HOW'! Mermaid says, 'that's a damn good question!'"--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nothing more than an extended "in popular culture" list. Failing that, Merge to mermaid. I don't see any good arguments in the article, the discussion above, or the past AfD for this being notable independent of mermaids, or any reason why it can't be adequately dealt with in the main article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per prior AfD in 2006. There is a lot of OR in this article, but if cleaned, it's legit. THF (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into mermaid. It seems to me that the mermaid-sex issue loses a lot of context as a standalone article. Does WP have any precedent for a standalone article on a hypothetical/mythological issue? (The closest comparison that I can think of off the top of my head is the time when the Straight Dope message board had a fact-based discussion about whether a Godzilla attack would be covered by insurance.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (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.