Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler


 * 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 Delete, due to more deletes than keeps, and I'm not going to count them all  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon Tendler
A woman who "marries" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO. Rob 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, notable bizarre transpecies marriage/publicity stunt. 35,700 google hits and all kinds of press coverage. Kappa 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Kappa Grimm 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are there any stories of this person, before the "marriage".  I'm somewhat concerned, that while there are ample news stories, the info on this person doesn't seem that reliable.  She's repeatedly referred to as a millionaire, and as a rock concert promoter in various stories.  But, I haven't found any pre-dolphin verification of this.  It seems what we know about this, is only what she told tabloid reporters, who then got picked up by other reporters, but there may not be truly reliable facts on this person.  I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.  But, I just don't think reporters covering dolphin marriages worry to much about fact checking.  I think, any decent bio seems to require one know reliablely what the occupation of the subject is, or was. --Rob 04:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on logic from Rob. This is not an expandable stub, and has no biographical information. So although the stunt may have been notable for 15 minutes, the person is not notable. This is not an archieve of weird news stories.Obina 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So there's no reason that someone interested in unusual marriages or human-dolphin relations should be able to read about this? Kappa 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kappa, the catch here is that it's not real. Saying you're marrying a dolphin, is like saying you're married to your job.  Neither are legal marriages.  The dolphin relationship has even less legal signficance.  She loves the dolphin, how nice.  Good for her.  There are *huge* numbers of people who make expressions of love for animals (usually, but not only their pets), that, tooken out of context, sound rather bizarre, and amazing.  I know somebody who calls her cats her "fury babies".  Now, if the Weekly World News runs the story "Woman from Canada has cats as babies!", shall we make an article for her?  --Rob 06:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This story has been reported more far more widely than a single tabloid, enough to make it signficant in fields of interspecies relationships or unusual marriage. Anyone writing an essay or thesis on either of these topics would be likely to mention this event. Kappa 19:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's *printed* widely, but there's actually little reporting that's been done. It seems a local paper covered a human interest story, the tabloids caught wind, and a single AP story got picked up (one AP story counts as scores or hundreds in Google News).  But almost nothing is reliable known about Tendler, beyond unverified statements she made after the ceremony.  I find claims of her being a rock concert promoter, clothing maker, and millionaire, rather dubious (but a bio article is void without such details).  Also, how could this be used for researching "interspecies relationships".  This woman lives in London, and visits Israel 2 or 3 times a year.  She doesn't live with the Dolphin, and won't live with the Dolphin.  Despite some puriant speculation, there's no likely "marital relations" (at least not in the "biblical" sense).  She concedes there's no legal signficance to this.  A basic problem here is that the same news agencies (like AP) that would srutinize bio facts for an election candidate, don't much care for fact-checking on a Dolphin story.  The fact people think any knowledge of "interspecies" relationships can be gained, shows the potential harm of this article.  Gossip always has many sources, but few good ones.  --Rob 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone could be harmed by an article which explains everything you have done. Her biography is irrevelant to the event, if she isn't notable for anything else the information should be merged somewhere else. Kappa 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Obina -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - A woman marrying a dolphin is pretty notable. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if she had a legal marriage. As that would be the first in world in history (that I know of).  But, this is as "real" as two five year olds playing marriage.  Also, as a bio article (not an event article) we need verifiable biographical information on this person.  I suggest, despite the huge number of stories, we don't reliably know if she's a milliionaire, rock promoter, or what she is.  We really only know what she told a couple tabloids (who's stories were repeated world wide).  --Rob 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rob and Obina. There is no encyclopaedic value of an article based on what is at best a skewed publicity stunt.  Movementarian 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm SURE this has been up for AfD recently....dont have time to look into it at the moment, but if someone does that'd be great. If not I'll do it later today. Jcuk 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're thinking of the groom, who is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin. --Rob 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not encyclopedic. Send to Wikinews, maybe merge into Wacky publicity stunts involving beastiality or something, but doesn't need its own article.  (Here I go to copy-paste this into another AfD, which is not a good sign.) -  brenneman (t) (c)  09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping Wikinews has enough standards to skip this. It seems many other news outlets don't seem to care if they have their facts straight on what actually happened.  This is an interesting case, which shows that sometimes the the factual information about a subject can oddly be inversly proportional to the number of Google hits.  --Rob 10:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as tabloid ephemera. The marriage has no legal status. (See also Cindy the Dolphin's AfD). Sliggy 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot imagine why we would want to delete the neutral, verifiable information in this article.  If a billionnaire "marrying" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO, we should instead delete WP:BIO because it's completely useless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. In two weeks no-one will be interested in who she was. The information might be relevant for a page about stupid publicity stunts or one about Inter-species marriage if that gets written. And if I see that link go blue when I click on save page, I will have to go for a short walk. David | Talk 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. People should realize that something mentioned on a slow news day does not necessarily mean (and probably never means) that it is encyclopedic. Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia? Anyone? No? Adam Bishop 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete  Grue   19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have redirected Cindy the Dolphin to Sharon Tendler.  The two articles are esentially duplicates (I was unaware of the duplication at the time of the nomination).  The result of Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus".  --Rob 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, returns over 35k hits on google. Also, a sign of the times as it shows that the defintion of marriage is changing and goes alongside events such as gay marriage. Englishrose 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the other AFD you argued:
 * 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.
 * Well, it's now verifiably proven that the marriage is not legal. The so-called "bride" herself conceded that point.  She doesn't live with Dolphin, and simply visits as a tourist 2-3 times a year, and that won't change.  There's no official marriage.  There's a source confirming the legal issue in the article (and *many* more available).  So, the whole basis for retention is now gone.  --Rob 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm basing it on what my original argument was, which was it gained loads of media attention blah blah which makes it notable. Regardless of whether it is legal, it is still a sign of the times and a notable event which makes it an article that should be included in wikipedia. On top of that, the story is quite famous. Still keep. Englishrose 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn person. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Kappa and others are conflating news content with encyclopedic content. Write it up at wikinews if anything, but this is not relevant to an encyclopedic project, which must aspire to more than a web-chronicle of events that end up in the papers.  News mention helps measure, but does not in and of itself confer, notability.  Eusebeus 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this encyclopedia aspired to be a reference for people interested in notable events in the fields of animal-human relations and bizarre marriages. Kappa 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the persuasive arguments here - we can't just write an encyclopedia article about every event that happens in the tabliods. One could always write a short writeup in the dolphin article if someone so desires as I bet the people there would be far more interested... WhiteNight T 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So people typing "Sharon Tendler" into the search box should be invited to start a new article about her? Kappa 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you'v easked this question in a few AfDs recently. I can only reply deletedpage. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That would at least be honest enough to inform users that we did have the information that they were looking for, but we destroyed it. Kappa 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kappa - in terms of your question I'll say that it goes in the same vain as other stuff here - for example we don't insert the insane speculation about the hollywood divorces in the pop star articles here every time it happens or every boyfriend they ever had. Some of those events might be verifiable but they are crufty in that they don't really have any real impact on anything. This is the same thing - yet another person who "married" an animal... it would have an actual claim to notability here if the marriage had actually taken place - but it didn't and it's variafiable that it did NOT take place and/or was not legal so the only other claim to notability is the reach of the event rather then the event itself, which as other people mentioned didn't even last for long at all since it was disproven early so it hardly had a lasting effect on society and isn't really historical in any concievable way. The reason "Sharon Tendler" doesn't need an article is precisely because there's really nothing to write about other then this minor dolphin blurb. If there was a list like "People who have claimed to marry animals" it might go there, for example. If and when she has something else to write about to write a real article THEN someone should start an article about her, but not at the moment. WhiteNight T 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tabloid speculation about divorces is all the same. Show me another incident of someone performing a marriage ceremony with a dolphin - or indeed any other species of marine mammal. Kappa 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The result of Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus", which automatically reverts to a "Keep". Cindy the Dolphin has now been altered to a redirect to Sharon Tendler. If this article gets deleted, then Cindy is going to redirect to nowhere. I'd suggest restoring it and putting this article in as a "See Also", then if this article survives AfD, merging the two. If this article does not survive, Cindy should not be deleted by the back door. Jcuk 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * People seeking the Dolphin should see this article, so they know there is an AFD, and can participate. If this is deleted, the dolphin article (unfortunately) would survive, but would be subject to yet another AFD if somebody wishes (due to lack of prior consensus and new information coming to light).  But, I do agree, no backdoor deletion should occur.  Without a dolphin-specific AFD consensus delete, the dolphin lives, even if his bride perishes here.  Anyway, it's all moot if this article is kept.  Also note, there's really no more merging left to do.  The dolphin article has no verifiable facts that this one doesn't.  --Rob 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sham marriage, dolphin recently proved not of legal age. Monicasdude 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I voted "keep pending verification" on Cindy the Dolphin, but as Rob points out, this is not a legal marriage at all. Thus, it's equivalent to a farmer "marrying" his cow. Funny story, but of no real significance. If this results in a deletion, I'll renominate Cindy the Dolphin too.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm compelled to say: Please always explain your reasoning per Guide to deletion. - brenneman (t) (c)  06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I don't neccesarily see the deletion of articles such as this when they have a lot of hits and AP coverage. It's a rather week keep and I won't fight for it.-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a biography of a notable person. Hell, it's not even a biography: it's the record of a publicity stunt. Ha ha, you had your 15 minutes of fame, now go away. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 10 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.