Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid Problem

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 NO CONSENSUS. Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mermaid Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains only original research and trivial subject matter Goldfritha 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — not simply original research, but OR written "in universe" ➥the Epopt 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agent 86 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-written, informative, and contains plenty of verifiable material with coherent references. It is not written "in-universe", and in fact goes to lengths to survey a wide-range of fictional universes. Which "universe", then is it in? Google shows that plenty of people discuss this concept using this term. If there are shortcomings in the article, they should be identified and corrected with some degree of precision. Dismissing the whole article as "original research" and sending it up for deletion is inappropriate. -- Shunpiker 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncyclopedia or keep. It's well-written, but I am wondering whether the article is a joke or not. If it is, then Uncyclopedia is the obvious ___location. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither "well-written" or "interesting" are encyclopedic criteria. If anything, what little encyclopedic information therein could easily be contained in a line or two in the main mermaid article. Agent 86 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Calling something "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" may be useful shorthand when there's no controversy, but doesn't help much when there is. Please be specific about why you think the content of this article fails the criteria for inclusion (WP:N). I think the wide range of references (films, television, songs, books) are more than adequate to prove notability in this case. Just because "well-written" is not encyclopedic criteria, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't give pause when considering deletion. Writing an article well takes time and thought. Deletion is rather easier. If articles are more thoughtful than the deletions that efface them, wikipedia loses something. -- Shunpiker 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it doesn't have a wide range of references to the "Mermaid Problem." It has a wide range of references some of which might be taken as references to the "Mermaid Problem." Goldfritha 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:OR refers to. Recury 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is exactly the sort of thing that WP:OR does NOT refer to. It doesn't "advance a position" or present a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It doesn't fit any of the categories listed in WP:OR. It's a bit trivial, sure, but not enough for deletion. --Sneftel 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is too! Recury 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, now that I think about it, just having given it a specific title might represent OR. Hmm. --Sneftel 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, my "Is too" argument worked. I might have to use that one more often. Recury 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The first part is an introduction and should be rewritten. The second section, "Examples of Humor", make references to where the problem has come up in popular fiction. Val42 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- OR and its only reference is to a web comic--SUIT 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It makes many other references to non-web resources, though these aren't called out as such. -- Shunpiker 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Anomo 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable neologism violating WP:NOT and lacking sufficient support under WP:RS. Also WP:BALLS. Morton devonshire 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems to have some OR, but lots (if not most) of it isn't, as said earlier it does need references, and the original reasearch has to be removed. I agree with what Val42 has said. Pro bug catcher 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research. Number of actual sources in article: clean zero. Uncyclopedia will give this article a loving home. Weregerbil 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly not OR--there seems to be an impression that compiling a few obvious passage is research, which it is not. There's more to say and a good many related plot elements. Sex with aliens has been the subject of at least one anthology. I agree on cutting a good deal of the first section. Maybe the AfD publicity will atttract some further examples and analogs.DGG 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rewriting is pretty badly needed, as this article is very unorganized, however, the article itself is describing an unusual literary phenomenom that is at least interesting to the several dozen authors cited. The article looks like it can be cleaned up and it needs to, as right now it consists of stating the concept and then giving example after example, without going into any real depth. EvilCouch 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's unsourced, it's an analysis... and therefore, it's original research. Interpretations without referencing is by definition WP:OR. Delete. B.Wind 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.