Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octopus person


 * 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The result was    Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closer) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

______________________

Octopus person
This article was first created in 2007 under the name "Cecælia", apparently just as an attempt to popularize a word that the page's author or someone else made up one day. In that regard, it apparently had some success; "cecaelia" is now a fairly commonly used word on DeviantArt and similar sites -- probably largely because of the Wikipedia article (which was often specifically cited as legitimizing the concept). However, the word never appeared in any sort of reliable sources, so the article was eventually renamed to "Octopus person", in accordance with WP:NEO. Which is definitely a more appropriate name, but doesn't really address the question of whether it's an appropriate subject for an article in the first place. While certainly half-cephalopod half-human creatures have existed in various fictional works, there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing them as a general phenomenon, which seems to make this article run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Don't necessarily recommend deleting it outright, but do recommend perhaps a Redirect to Hybrid (mythology). Smeazel (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD Withdrawn. On re-reading of the deletion policy, I find that I missed before the statement that "any user can boldly redirect to another article".  So I'm just going to do that.  I think I can take the fact that another editor proposed on the article's talk page a year ago that it be made into a redirect and nobody in the intervening year posted to disagree or argue against the proposal as sufficient grounds to consider the matter undisputed.  Sorry; should have read the deletion policy more carefully in the first place. Smeazel (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2011 (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.