Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Myth


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Myth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is based entirely on an article in the Internet Journal of Criminology (a journal that just so happens to be edited by the author of the paper, which may explain how something with nothing to do with criminology was published in the journal). This might warrant a one line mention in Popeye or Spinach, but a whole article on the back of one obscure journal article is not how we do things. Fences &amp;  Windows  14:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Definitely seems to fail WP:N to me. No sources other than the one, that I can find at least. Also quite WP:POV... GorillaWarfare  talk 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the article is kept, the title should be changed to something that makes sense, not a phrase that is nearly incomprehensible. Lady  of  Shalott  15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails general notability and, flying my own colors, reads like WP:JIBBERJABBER. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Generally incomprehensible, and certainly not notable. One reference, even in a reliable publication, does not notability make.Nitack (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Myth Kook No Ref Trivia. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

color:#808080;">&amp; Windows  13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to something more sensible, but it needs a serious rewriting (including the Internet Journal of Criminology plug). The subject is notable, and there's been stuff written on it (in sources such as BMJ no less) and you can find this myth featured on University pages. I don't know how you can say this stuff isn't referenced, since it obviously is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the claim this error is an urban myth (which is what this article is about) is based entirely on one article in an obscure journal, which has received no further coverage. The topic of the supposed iron content of spinach is already covered at Spinach and Popeye, including a reference to this article. We do not need a whole article about it, which essentially serves to advertise Mike Sutton and his journal. Fences <span style="background-color:white;
 * Yes, and theory of Newtonian gravity can be traced back to one article as well. That only one article is the source of the myth isn't important, what is important is that the myth is notable, and that several later sources do cover it (which establishes both WP:V and WP:N). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There are multiple myths and stories about the origin of the claimed high content of iron in spinach. The one I was familiar with was that the amount of iron in spinach was originally measured from dried spinach (which has only 10% of the mass of normal fresh spinach, thus corresponding to the 10 times exaggeration). I don't think the one myth described in this article is so famous that it warrants its own article. In fact, the story I was aware of is much more popular (at least in my native language). As such, this is much better off to be mentioned in the spinach and popeye articles. Nageh (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see how this warrants its own article. A brief mention in the spinach article would suffice. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 15:23, 6 August 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.