Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythological conundrum

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological conundrum

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a fairly weak attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't see any evidence (from searching) that this is a real topic; the foundation seems to be just a single chapter from the 200-page 1915 "handbook of conundrums" [1]. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: From what I see in Google and Google Books, it does appear to be a real topic with the phrase turning up as early as the 1850s. That said, the article as it stands is little more than a dictionary definition and a handful of semi-random examples. However, that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't see it. I think this just a two-word combination that occurs occasionally, not really a concept. If you see real uses that are good examples, please provide a quote. Besides which, IMO the current version is such a poor basis for an article on this topic (if it is a real topic), that it's better to delete it. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The full text of the Ordway book is available online (the relevant chapter begins here). ^Bongo_matic 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That two words occasionally occur together does not mean that they form an encyclopedic topic. The Ordway book isn't especially useful for our purposes either. Ucucha 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets WP:N and per Dravecky. Appears to be a retaliatory nom by an admin who has been in an ongoing war with an alleged alter account of the creator. Minor4th 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. I fail to see how cleaning up after banned users by AFD-nominating questionable articles (for community to judge inclusion or not) is retaliatory; besides the underlying presumption that the banned user ever injured me being erroneous. (I mean, he accused me of all manner of things, but in his case, that just proved I was an admin.) Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not establish that the topic is notable. Seems to just be two words that sometimes happen together. We might as well have an article on "American stupidity." Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uh, you realize that American stupidity was created (as a redirect) in December 2008, right? - Dravecky (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that there's a coherent topic here. Deor (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (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.