Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus, therefore keep. The Land 18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cindy the Dolphin
Nonsense, even if it is true, though Google indicates the dolphin's name is probably Sendy. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep . Firstly, there are two spellings of the name but the most commonly used one is Cindy. Article is notable as it's the first dolphin to marry a human, thus makes it notable enough for wikipedia. Other articles such as the monkey hanger are strange but are rightly included in wikipedia. Google News Search Englishrose 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear that I am the author of the article and I believe that it needs adding to at a later stage when the news becomes more readily available. The news is just breaking, thus at a later stage it should be improved. Englishrose 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are only four Google hits for "Sharon Tendler". She is not notable, let alone her "husband".  Try Wikinews.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete probable hoax this is only mentioned on one blog so not verifyable --Pboyd04 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down I never said anything about "notability" and I stand corrected on the hoax, also not living in the UK I'm not up on all the latest British news. That said it seems to unencyclopedic in my opinion so my opinion stands as delete. --Pboyd04 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, it is merely a guideline. Regardless, the dolphin is notable as it’s the first dolphin to marry a human. Obscure but notable. Also, as the news is breaking it will take more than less than a day for her name to have more hits on google. She is mentioned more on google news: Please visit google news before accussing it of being a hoax. Please turn on your television as it has been mentioned on BBC3 News as I was typing this. Englishrose 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be a hoax. See http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16532012&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=i-now-pronounce-you-mammal-and-wife--name_page.html (I love the page name :) ) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete tabloid-column-filling ephemera that is not encyclopedic . Sliggy 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sliggy, unless this becomes wildly more notable in the next few days. bikeable (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Define notability? Gaining television media coverage from the BBC and NBC. Gaining coverage from many tabloids and broadsheet newspapers? Does that not make it notable? Englishrose 18:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It absolutely happened and if marrying a dolphin isnt notable, then I just give up! Jcuk 10:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The human married the dolphin, but did the dolphin marry the human? A human marrying or claiming to marry a dolphin is notable only for its unusual form of stupidity.  Since human stupidity is so common though (in all forms), I don't think we need to add it to Wikipedia which is about the sum of human knowledge. GestaltG 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It’s irrelevant whether the dolphin agreed to the marriage because the marriage is legal in Israel. It is the first marriage to be legal between a human and a dolphin anywhere in the world, that itself makes it notable enough for wikipedia regardless of the morals of it and the human’s stupidity.Englishrose 14:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The concept of marrying a dolphin is utter nonsense. To rephrase it as "a dolphin marrying a human" is even more nonsense, since it indicates some kind of voluntary act on the part of the dolphin, which we can never verify because we cannot talk to dolphins.  If this stood as an article, then someone could get an article by marrying their dog.  The only thing notable about that is the petty stupidity of the human, which doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry, but an entry in a place for mentally challenged persons.  Besides, this sham is a mockery of the intent of marriage, which is companionship and reproduction, and raising children.  A dolphin and a human could never be married. GestaltG 17:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Different cultures have different beliefs. As you’re from Pennsylvania, I’m trusting that your steretypical culture (not nessessarily you) is against gay marriage. Similarly, some cultures will find marrying a dolphin unusual but acceptable. So to justifiy a speedy deletion based on your culture’s beliefs is to ignore other cultures. My culture finds arranged marriages wrong, should anything accosiated with arranged marriages be excluded from wikipedia? No.
 * Comment “Besides, this sham is a mockery of the intent of marriage, which is companionship and reproduction, and raising children.” Does that include gay marriage?

I’m not denying that marrying a dolphin isn’t absurd, but surely it’s absurdity is one of the first real signs that marriage is becoming less important and is gradually become a mockery. In which case, the article IS significant.

Someone who is still at school might have an assignment based on the changing attitudes towards marriage (I’m pretty sure it’s a common subject for students taking Religious Studies to write about), this article would come in useful as it would show a change in attitudes towards marriage.

This article sums up the changes in attitudes towards marriage during this month. Britian’s first gay marriages have taken place and to top it all off a British woman has marriaged a dolphin in Isreal. Surely, signs of change should not be dismissed as asburdities and not included. Similarly, Rosa Parks actions during the civil rights movements were seen as “asurd” but they proved significant in the civil rights movement. Thus asurdity shouldn’t be a reason why something should be deleted.

At the moment those believing that the article should stay may be outnumbered but we have the stronger argument to keep the article against those who want it deleted. Englishrose 18:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Still Delete I am not going to get into a big editorial debate with you about the meaning of marriage. My comment was taken from the basic definition of marriage, from college Sociology 101 (functionalist view).  You might then state (somewhat correctly) that Western Sociology has a traditional Christan bent, but the elements of that definition of marriage have been accepted by the vast majority of human cultures (Christian and non-Christian and pre-Christian) throughout history.  Gay marriage and alternative defintitions of marriage are only recent.  If you want to write an article about alternative forms of marriage, or add a modern section to an article about marriage, go ahead, but using this "article" is not the way to do it.


 * Now, as to my comment, it was meant to be taken literally as follows. First, a human and an animal of any sort, let alone a dolphin, cannot reproduce because they are not of the same species.  It's part of the basic definition of a species, look it up, from high school Biology 101.  Second, it's highly unlikely they could share a "marital companionship."  And if they cannot have children, it's not likely (even if they "adopted") that they could raise children.  How could a dolphin participate meaningfully in raising human children?


 * Finally, I don't see how you could quantify arguments for keeping it stronger than arguments for deletion, especially after admitting to the absurdity of this article. Your stated reasons why the keep arguments are stronger begs instead that you write or contribute to an article about alternative forms of marriage, or modern marriage, they don't necessarily argue strongly in favor of keeping this particular article GestaltG 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was a top news story yesterday, so it should be notable enough. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying the top story for each day should become a Wikipedia article? And top story where?  In the tabloids?  I didn't see it on World News Tonight last night.  In fact, I have never seen this story mentioned anywhere but here.  GestaltG 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It featured on BBC News. The story was covered in most UK newspapers such as The Sun and The Mirror Englishrose 22:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found out about this story from doing a Yahoo News search. Newspapers in India and it was featured in the UK paper "Mirror." While I question the sanity of the woman, but if this is deemed a hoax later on, we can still probably write about this and how the hoax was carried out. Zach (Smack Back) 02:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fifteen years ago when I was working in a grocery store, I saw a headline that I will never forget, because it was so absurd: "Vampires in the US are dying of AIDS!"  Should I write an article about that?  Maybe an article about absurd tabliod headlines?  I mean, I question the sanity of whomever wrote that headline (clever insanity I might admit), but does that merit a Wikipedia article? GestaltG 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Vampires in the US are dying of AIDS!" could be mentioned in the article Vampire. Englishrose 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But it wouldn't deserve a separate article by itself, and that is what I am saying. If you want to somehow add the story that a human married a dolphin to a page about modern marriage, that's fine I guess.  But it doesn't deserve a separate article, which is what we are arguing about here, whether to delete this particular article. GestaltG 14:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't feel the article is notable in the first place. Even if completely legit, I just don't see it retaining any meaningful notability in the future. - Liontamer 21:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.Being a top news story doesn't certify this to be included in wikipedia however, it being the FIRST and I stress the FIRST inter-species marriage in particular the first Dolphin-Human marriage, the first land-sea species marriage, is a notable event. To claim it isn't is simply ignorance RBlowes 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User's first Wikipedia edit. Sliggy 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out sliggy, although I don't see why it should be. RBlowes 23:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep It's verifiable and it's notable (first inter-species "marriage" that's recognized by a government). I don't see how this violates any policy. Whether or not this meets anyone's definition of marriage is irrelevant.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said THAT before! In all this arguing, nobody has once mentioned that the marriage was recognized by a government.  Where do you get that? GestaltG 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Englishrose said it above. See .  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not verifiable that this is the first inter-species marriage. The claim to legality in Israel is just that - a claim - unless an authoratitive source is available. Just because the red-tops thought this tale would sell a few copies doesn't make it notable. Sliggy 09:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about that. We'll need credible sources for that. Change vote to keep pending verification.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you realize the absurdity of what you are saying here. You are apparently saying that if a government recognizes it, the article is notable and should be kept regardless of anyone's ideas of marriage.  While I agree that this debate is about whether to keep the article and not about the definition of marriage (and I only mentioned it earlier to show the absurdity of the whole concept, but I also told Englishrose that I would not engage in an editoral war with him here over the definition of marriage), a government in acknowledging such a marriage would be applying a definition.  Further, you are then saying that if a government recognizes a marriage, it's a marriage.  That is nothing but a backdoor argument to the "alternative marriage" agenda/POV that Englishrose was trying to introduce here.  Further, the legal complexities introduced by such recognition would be just mind-boggling, and obviously you have not thought it through.  For example, if the human dies, does the dolphin get his/her pension?  And how is that handled?  The whole matter is just absurd...but I digress.  This debate is only about whether to keep this article or not, within the definition of "encyclopedic" used by Wikipedia.  It's not a debate about the definition of marriage or government recognition of such.  If the marriage has verifiably been recognized by a government, then it is probably notable, and should be carefully included in the article to establish it's notability and then the article for deletion debate is over.  However, my sense here is that Englishrose, the author of the article, has it here for another reason, he has an agenda and is trying to use this article as a means to advance alternative definitions of marriage, and this is why I have resisted and voted for deletion of this article.  Englishrose and his cohorts should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for alternative forms of marriage arguments, or to try to backdoor their way into it by introducing this absurd and non-verifiable article about an alleged first inter-species marriage. GestaltG 18:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I’m feeling quite angry with that comment. Firstly, in most simple terms- Cindy The Dolphin = first dolphin to marry a human = significant event = notable.

“However, my sense here is that Englishrose, the author of the article, has it here for another reason, he has an agenda and is trying to use this article as a means to advance alternative definitions of marriage, and this is why I have resisted and voted for deletion of this article.” ---Oh come on that is absurd, just because I qeustioned your defintion of marriage does not mean that I wanted to advance alternative defitinions of marriage- I would have contributed to the marriage article, I don’t. In fact, the only personal agenda is that I have a fondness to write articles about famous animals or animal like creatures, see H'Angus the Monkey.

“Englishrose and his cohorts should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for alternative forms of marriage arguments, or to try to backdoor their way into it by introducing this absurd and non-verifiable article about an alleged first inter-species marriage.”---Firstly what cohorts? I have no alignment with anybody who has voted in this article apart from sharing the belief that this article should be kept. Secondly, the article is verifiable as it has been reported by a large amount of news services. Thirdly, I’ve never made any alligations about it being the first inter-species marriage…although I persume it is the first inter-species marriage involving a British citizen.

In future, I think you should think carefully before you make false-alligations about my intentions as this can be considered as a personal attack. I think you should comment on the content and not the contributer and assume good faith. Englishrose 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My questioning your motives for writing the article is not a personal attack. I have read your page, and it does not fit any of the examples given on the page.  I didn't call you any name, insult you, or make any slurs on you.  I made a reasonable statement about what I think are your motives here.  Though you might try to make that into an attack on the contributor rather than the content of the article, it is really a discussion about the content of the article.  Now, if you want to "go there" your classification of my comments about your motives as a personal attack are nothing but a weak attempt to minimize my arguments, rather than actually discussing and responding to the arguments with intelligent arguments. GestaltG 20:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply having an article that documents that this event happened does not push POV in either way. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions about the "marriage." Now assuming this is indeed legal and recognized by Israel (a big assumption, I must confess), it would be remiss of Wikipedia to omit the story. That the state of Massachusetts permits same-sex marriage is a fact and does not imply that Wikipedia endorses the act. If this just turns out to be someone who's a bit daft and a minister or whatever that felt like humoring this woman, then it's a non-event and deserves to be deleted.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I gave at Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler. --Rob 09:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: To the closing admin, I request you process two AFDs together (this one and Sharon Tendler).  They are essentially articles on the same item.  Also, text has been moved from one to another.  So, either both should be deleted; or both kept, with a redirect from one to another.  --Rob 09:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's now been verified (with a citation in the article) that the "bride" concedes (what should be obvious), that there's no legal signficance to this wedding.  So, with no government recognition, or claim of it, nothing slightly signficant happened here.   --Rob 09:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not encyclopedic. The legal status has nothing to do with it, [I]t's simply another "humourous news story of the day" and doesn't belong here.  Send to Wikinews, maybe merge into Wacky publicity stunts involving beastiality or something, but doesn't need its own article.  (I've copy-paste this from another AfD, which is not a good sign.) -  brenneman (t) (c)  09:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting dolphins to the side for the moment, I suggest if somebody entered into a entirely new type of marriage, that never existed in the country or the world, and it was officially recognized, that would certainly be notable and encyclopedic. Non-official unique relationships on the other hand, are rarely notable, no matter how strange or bizarre they may be.  So I think you're wrong, the legal status is very signficant.  --Rob 10:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr... I find that argument pretty compelling. Thank you for that.  Striking through as appropiate. -  brenneman (t) (c)  11:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This made international headlines .  I can't imagine why we'd want to delete the neutral, verifiable information in this article (although it could use a little cleanup). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. See the Sharon Tendler AfD debate. I can't fathom how anyone thought this could be encylopaedic. David | Talk 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.