Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecaelia

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. The keep comments have little weight in the absence of reliable sources, so I am closing this as delete in lieu of relisting it a third time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Cecaelia

Cecaelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Searched for sources and could not find much that proves this is a legitimate mythological creature and not a recent invention. Article is entirely WP:OR. (Note: Article was improperly recreated from Octopus person instead of moved.) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Let this page stay. Even though the Cecaelia part of the creature has no mythological part, it has since fit the category of the stock characters like they did with the swamp monster and any other type of monster that doesn't have their own stock character page on Wikipedia like the mud monsters, snow monsters, or lava monsters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It COULD... if it had several or more reliable sources proving that the octopus person as a stock character was notable enough for a standalone article. But without any, it's still not notable. The sourcing of swamp monster is dubious as well, so it may not be notable either, and is not a very good example to prove your point._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • An addendum: here is a link that proves that the notion of a "Cecaelia" as a separate species was created in the late 2000's and the name is only based on a neologism from a single story. Beyond that, there is little that discusses them as a species, rather than Ursula from the Little Mermaid as a character. At most, it could be redirected to Ursula (Disney)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Newness does not prevent notability. Slender Man is from this decade. A quick google search shows the term 'Cecaelia' is used widely. Nessie (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Widely perhaps, but not in any reliable sources. See WP:ITSPOPULAR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete/move/redirect most of the examples shouldn't be on a page called Cecaelia, as sources don't link them to the term. Its been moved back and forth before : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octopus person. Has a better change as 'Octopus person' I think, but even then not established as a concept by sources. Cyrej (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to the above comment, it's irrelevant for notability whether it is referred to as a Cecaelia or octopus person: Wikipedia is not a dictionary about individual words or terms but an encyclopedia about concepts. The concept is notable per the sources; an alternative would be to merge with Cephalopods in popular culture but that seems unnecessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources show the concept of an "octopus person" is notable, even putting the neologism name aside. As far as I can tell, Ursula is the sole notable octopus person in popular culture. The rest of it is WP:OR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:27, 26 February 2018 (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.