Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming with dolphins (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Swimming with dolphins
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While some sources, seems largely promotional and arbitrary (do we need an article on running with dogs? Various maintenance tags have been unaddressed for over a decade. If anything, this could just be merged into dolphinariums. Zim Zala Bim  talk 03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article right now is pretty poor, I do believe the concept of swimming in particular with dolphins in particular is a highly referenced concept in literature generally, such that it justifies an article. BrigadierG (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll admit this is a tough call on some levels - wouldn't swimming with dolphins, one could argue, constitute a physical activity that is legitimately worth cataloguing in such an encyclopedia as this one? There are several arguments NOT in favor of the page, however. Several blaring problems that I, too, agree renders the page utterly irrelevant and, indeed, very arbitrary. For example, whereas certain obscure "activity-style events" may very legitimately deserve a page (ex. Extreme ironing) there are no sporting qualities to swimming with dolphins, not even really as anything other than a footnote on the stylistic variations of swimming itself. Indeed, the conditions of the page - as they currently stand, as well as with their potential - are questionable. ...As a frequented activity that is perceptible, I would argue that the concept of swimming with dolphins still isn't reminiscent of an educationally sound, intricately beneficial page in the bigger picture. Because the unique separation of the subject matter is rather minimal, at best I could justify synthesizing the page into a sociocultural-esque aspect on the main page (see Dolphin). Not only would this address the subject matter exclusively and expressly without requiring an in-depth piece elsewhere, the "how this fits in" question would naturally be automatically solved by the other sections on the page (see the components of the relationship between dolphins and humans). By the implication of this, yes, the dolphinarium page could exhibit an explanatory overview, if short, not unlike how the page itself is in terms of length. Ultimately I find it less worthwhile to justify a separate page than it would be to keep the bulk idea of the page in a better-maintained form on the actual dolphin page (and its relevant sub-linking pages) - with additional discussion where need be, of course. ^^ Thoughts? Feelings? ...Anyone else have a take on this? (P.S. I would also like to point out that the featured picture on the page does not actually display a dolphin, which is somewhat amusing in retrospect.) TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the 2008 AFD, let's just improve it.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly per TheMysteriousShadeheart. While swimming with dolphins is a popular activity, it's not a distinct topic which requires its own article, and I can't imagine a version of this article that would not be redundant to Dolphin. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The previous AFD cites the prevalence of sources and potential for future expansion as a reason to keep for future improvement. However, no enterprising editor seems to have stepped up to the plate to actually make those improvements in over a decade, and I'm not convinced one ever will. Should some future person with deep interest in swimming with dolphins feel the need to write an article worthy of being featured on the main page, they're welcome to re-create this one. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This argument should be discarded by the closer, as it contradicts WP:NOEFFORT BrigadierG (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, not a policy; let the closer decide which arguments are valid. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep - we are trying to assess the notability of the subject and not the content of the page as it is, nor whether it has been improved in the last decade. I think we have a human phenomena here that a) exists and b) is distinct than other pages or subsections such as the relationship between dolphins and humans. I say this largely because academic studies exist. For example 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. There's also this book that is sharply critical of the activity. So it's a thing. Second, I think there is precidence for this kind of page - in terms of therapeutic there's therapy dog in terms of general human interaction with the wilderness for wellbeing there's nature therapy so it is encyclopedic. I think there's a good argument for a page that describes the reported benefits, criticisms etc which goes beyond simply talking about how humans usually interact with them. I say weak keep because I wouldn't personally take the time to improve it. JMWt (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: per JMWt. –– FormalDude  (talk)  11:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the fact that the name of this article sounds like a certain Kevin Costner movie (Dances With Wolves, anyone?). JMWt has provided solid academic sources; it sounds like the main objections are that it's imbalanced, comes across in places like OR, and most importantly that no one has been willing to take the time to improve it. Well, I am volunteering to fix it. Why? Because I recently found myself researching this very topic in writing about captive dolphins at the Kahala Hotel & Resort. I've also reviewed several of the other pages where we could try to "merge" the content instead, but I think there is enough for a standalone article here; the important thing to keep it neutral and factual and stick to the sources. (I do wonder why I didn't come across this page sooner when I was looking for information on the topic...but in any case it's fixable.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep per clear existence of sources on the subject and Cielquiparle's commitment to improve the article. BD2412  T 05:18, 13 October 2022 (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.