Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centauroid creature

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 redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centauroid creature[edit]

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

While some of the individual creatures described here may be notable, I don't believe that "centauroid creature" is itself a notable concept, so this doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, I doubt that the article's sources actually refer to "centauroid creature" as a concept, so this is a case of original research and/or synthesis. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very cautious about syntheses, which are an essential element of thought and not really to be broadly denigrated across the board— Wikirules to the contrary notwithstanding— but this doesn't hang together as a subject. The neologism used for an article title suggests that it's not really a genuinely established category either. What is the generic term for a "man-beast"? Does any principle unite these? What about other hybrid creatures like the goat-fish of Capricorn? --Wetman (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the closest we've got is hybrid (mythology), which to my eye could be greatly expanded, by form, by culture, by characteristic (divine, mortal ...). A topic as universal as this, present in mythologies worldwide, must have engendered a lot of writing. At any rate I wouldn't want to lose the content at Centauroid creature, so some sort of merge or rename seems the right choice here. Man-Beast unfortunately has no general article -- turns out there was comic book character of that name. Antandrus (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a rename would solve this problem, but a merge to hybrid (mythology) might. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hybrid (mythology). The list of fictional creatures could be merged with List of hybrid creatures, or to a new List of fictional hybrid creatures. Clearly there is interest in the topic. However centauroid creatures do not need to be drawn out from the general topic of hybrid creatures. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary There's apparently a doll answering this description and called by this name , see [1] [2], and there's an extended definition at wordiq. Wiktionary gives a citation to Poul Anderson's FireTime. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hybrid (mythology) still seems the best option to me. A redirect to Wiktionary would be a strange solution. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It doesn't advance discussion if you don't give a reason, and this is not a vote. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Any authentic material here, if there is any, should be incorporated into Hybrid (mythology), which covers this ground in more encyclopedic fashion.--Wetman (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2011 (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.