Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanesian mythology

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanesian mythology

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

Article has no content. It is supposed to be about myths but doesn't mention any Bhny (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it also says the term is meaningless. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by critic overwrote the original stub with this negative opinion. The page was created as part of a set on the mythology of Oceania as the navigation template indicates. Please do not take such unsupported criticism at face-value in deletion discussions lest hostile editors and vandals lead us astray. Andrew (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The stubby nature of the current draft is insufficient reason to delete. It is easy to find other reference works with entries for this topic such as Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend and The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Andrew (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything specifically about "Melanesian mythology". Even the article says that the term is useless. Bhny (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that statement in the current draft is not supported by a citation. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But my question was- Is there anything specifically [in any reference] about "Melanesian mythology". Is this even a topic? At the moment it seems like two words jammed together. Bhny (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided two sources and there are plenty more out there. Please see WP:BEFORE which explains the due diligence required for nominations. Andrew (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I see this now. Bhny (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing the mythology of any group of people is encyclopedic. The article needs to have some actual content though. I Googled and found two websites talking about them, [1] and [2]. Not sure if either would be considered a reliable source. The information in them can be run through Google book search, or Google for any website ending in .edu or .gov, to find reliable sources there. Dream Focus 00:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those sources is a good catch, being an extensive account by the Harvard professor Roland Burrage Dixon. This will provide a good foundation for the topic — well done. Andrew (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew added public domain text. I'm not sure how accurate this 100 year old information is, aspects of racism and colonialism need to be considered. But it shows it's possible to create an in-depth article on the topic. -- GreenC 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though English language sourcing seems limited, this is quite clearly an encyclopedic topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (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.