Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Cindy (dolphin): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:04, 18 May 2008 editEcoleetage (talk | contribs)15,020 edits →Cindy (dolphin): Delete← Previous edit Revision as of 05:29, 19 May 2008 edit undo69.140.152.55 (talk) →Cindy (dolphin)Next edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
*'''Delete''' this reject from the Weekly World News. WP:BLD1E. ] (]) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' this reject from the Weekly World News. WP:BLD1E. ] (]) 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ]. ] (]) 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per ]. ] (]) 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*Weak '''delete'''. There are decent sources for verifiability, but what if they are wrong? ] (]) 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *Weak '''delete'''. There are decent sources for verifiability, but <s>what if they are wrong?</s> ] a newspaper. ] (]) <s>17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)</s> 05:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
::The sources are defintley reliable. MSNBC, Fox News etc are reliable sources. ] (]) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ::The sources are defintley reliable. MSNBC, Fox News etc are reliable sources. ] (]) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', I don't give a toss anymore and I know the delete pragade will get their way...but this article was nominated for deletion TWICE and one was No consensus (keep) and the other was a straight keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cindy_the_Dolphin_%282nd_nomination%29). So the delete vote based on the fact that Sharon Tendler was deleted is irrelevent (besides she was NOT notable, the Dolphin IS). The arguments in those delete vote were more meaningful than the votes presented here. *'''Keep''', I don't give a toss anymore and I know the delete pragade will get their way...but this article was nominated for deletion TWICE and one was No consensus (keep) and the other was a straight keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cindy_the_Dolphin_%282nd_nomination%29). So the delete vote based on the fact that Sharon Tendler was deleted is irrelevent (besides she was NOT notable, the Dolphin IS). The arguments in those delete vote were more meaningful than the votes presented here.

Revision as of 05:29, 19 May 2008

Cindy (dolphin)

Cindy (dolphin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A good example of WP:RECENTISM. A dolphin "married" a woman, this article is about the dolphin. This was nothing more than a tabloid story and something found in the "Weird News" section. I do not see how this event is signifanct enough to be in a encyclopedia. The article about the woman was already deleted . The last AFD for the article was around when this story was in news. Anyways the dolphin gets an article but not the woman? That makes no sense. Neither are notable. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLD (biographies of living dolphins). Interesting story, but it is clearly a one-shot job -- no news coverage for the happily "married" woman or her cetacean groom after their, um, marriage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply: Actually, there was news coverage for the Dolphin's death as presented in the article. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources are defintley reliable. MSNBC, Fox News etc are reliable sources. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't give a toss anymore and I know the delete pragade will get their way...but this article was nominated for deletion TWICE and one was No consensus (keep) and the other was a straight keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cindy_the_Dolphin_%282nd_nomination%29). So the delete vote based on the fact that Sharon Tendler was deleted is irrelevent (besides she was NOT notable, the Dolphin IS). The arguments in those delete vote were more meaningful than the votes presented here.
I understand this will be deleted anyway as wikipedia has changed and the delete voters pragade have become more of a force and this will result in wikipedia's downfall. This was always a borderline keep but if some of the other very notable stuff gets deleted then I have no doubt this will to, which is kind of sad in a way. But there you go. Englishrose (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I the article on Sharon Tendler contained the exact same information that this article has. What makes the dolphin notable and not the woman? The wedding itself is what got the headlines, not the woman or the dolphin. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Then rename it to Dolphin/Human marriage or something more appropiate. More to the point this article that contained less information than it does now got kept twice. What changes? Englishrose (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The marriage still isn't notable. It was just a tabloid and "weird news" story, nothing else. Every day theres stories like this. What about the guy who sat on the toilet in an airplane, that made headlines should he get an article? Just watch any late night monologue and theres a lot of stories like this, non of them suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Categories: