Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaids in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mermaids in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Indiscriminate collection of information. AJRG (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's not indiscriminate (a word that refers to a lack of information to discriminate between one entry on a list and the next). An "indiscriminate list" generally refers to a list of blue links, not as common now as it once was.  It is, however, totally unsourced, and if nothing is added, then this one can sink to the bottom.  In some cases, it's not appropriate for an article about pop culture references to be merged into an article about classical references, and this would be one of those cases.  Hence, we have Hercules in popular culture so that we can keep Kevin Sorbo and Disney cartoons apart from the classical myth of Hercules or Heracles.   Mandsford 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not at all indiscriminate. Could do with improvement but that's not a reason to delete. Given that several books exist that cover this in some detail, e.g. this and this, it's a perfectly reasonable, and sourceable, subject for an article.--Michig (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you offering to improve it? The article's been here a while and doesn't seem to have progressed much.  Indiscriminate in that there appear to be no criteria for inclusion beyond the word "mermaid", no critical analysis and no second or third party viewpoints.  Where, for example, is any mention of mermaid hoaxes?  Wikipedia already has an article on P.T.Barnum's Fiji Mermaid, which appeared in the X-Files ("Humbug," Season 2, Episode 20). AJRG (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - If there are problems with the article, edit the article. Delete half or 80% of it or whatever if you want. But to delete the whole article is to say that no encyclopedic article could exist on this topic. It's a real topic, and these kinds of articles are split off the main articles for very good, practical reasons. All deleting this article would do is bring all the bad points of this article back to the main article as the same people who put some of the less than helpful content there would still want to put it somewhere. Clean it up if you think it needs it, but don't delete it and make the problem worse. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources, then let's see them. Perhaps Michig will help.  AJRG (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have the books I linked to above, not really being big on mermaids, or it would probably be easy to improve this using them. If this is kept I'm certainly prepared to see what I can dig up on the web. There must be plenty around on Splash, The Little Mermaid, the mermaid in Peter Pan, Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid, etc, etc. The article should include discussion of how mermaids have been depicted, etc. The article's too "listy" at the moment, but fixable. Time for sleep now, though. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral although I believe a list of mermaid-centred media would be perfectly reasonable, usable and desirable, this isn't it. It is indiscriminate in the sense that incidental and virtually non-existent mermaid appearances are given the same weight as things like the film Splash, which is complete and utter bollocks and of little use to someone who actually wants to know about what is supposedly the subject of the list. Doubtless it will be kept and remain in the same soggily useless state, marvellous. Someoneanother 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the article useful, and too extensive to merge to Mermaid. It could use some work but that is no reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2010 (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.