Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy the Dolphin

This is the second nomination for this. In the first one, there was no consensus. At least one, and probably more votes were based on the assumption there was actually a legal signficance to the ceremony. There wasn't. Also the lack of verifiable information about the bride of this dolphin is now clearer. Finally, there is a clear consensus to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler, which is for essentially the same article. Rob 22:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if someone wrote a PhD on bizarre publicity stunt weddings or human-dolphin relationships, this event would be mentioned. Kappa 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If somebody wrote on a tabloid story like that, they shouldn't get their Phd. --Rob 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It takes all sorts. It would also be good for essays on the changing attitudes of marriage. Believe it or not this is a significant event in comparison with the recent developments of gay marriage. Englishrose 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is unrelated to gay marriage, as gay marriages are now legal in a number of countries. Also, even unrecognized relationships between gays are at least real. That is, there are actually people who live together, and raise families together. This woman does not live with the dolphin. She visits him a couple times a year. She has no more relationship with him, than millions of kids have with the panda bear at the local zoo. This is starting to smell of POV-pushing on gay-marriage to me. --Rob 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It is related to gay marriage because it shows that the different attitudes towards marriage. 10 years ago gay marriage would have seemed unthinkable is most parts of the world. Times are changing and people are trying to push forward different types of marriage. This is yet more evidence of change in attitudes towards marriage, whether it is legal or not. This is starting to smell of POV-pushing on gay-marriage to me. As a hetrosexual just for the record, I'm not really bothered if it seems as a POV pushing on gay marriage cause to be frank it's people's business, not mine. However, I recognise that it is significant as it shows a change in attitudes just as this article shows...sorry for repeating myself. I'd also like to point out that when gay marriage was deemed morrally wrong, people took part in similar services such as the one in this article despite them not being legal as a show of their love. I think I've made my point. Englishrose 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
          • What verifiable evidence do you have this "couple" has any relationship beyond the ceremony? There is no marriage. There was an unofficial ceremony. That's it. It means as little as two five year olds pretending to marry. If you want to argue that this has something in common with gay marriage, you have to show this "couple" has something in common with gay married couples or any married couples. Where is your verifiable evidence? This is just an attempt by anti-gay groups to attack gay people, by equating them with beastiality. You know as well as I, that nobody involved, in this actually supports "relations" between humans and dolphins. --Rob 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Please assume good faith. It’s not an attack on gay marriage, it’s not even a pro-freedom article. Although to be honest if someone falls in “love” with a dolphin then it’s not a bad thing, I feel that any type of “love” is a positve thing. As I’ve said before, I’m not against but I’m not really for it. I’m too laid back to have a strong opinion on Dolphin marriage, although I can’t see why it offended some people in the previous AFD discussion. It was linked to gay marriage from people such as Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly. [1]. Maybe they’d read my comments on the previous AFD discussion but I doubt it. What verifiable evidence do you have this "couple" has any relationship beyond the ceremony? I’m pretty sure that there is a relationship beyond the ceremony based on the fact that she is reported to be “infated” on the dolphin but based on the fact that she has visited the Dolphin and she has been visiting it for 15 years. [2]. So I think the evidence although journalistic shows that there is apparently a relationship between the woman and dolhpin, thus I believe that this relationship has gone on past the cermony. I don’t think it’s impossible for people to fall in love with a dolphin, although a little strange. Englishrose 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as per Kappa but I'd also like to add that this article recieved widespread publicity. It was broadcasted on major Worldwide news stations such as BBC news and NBC news etc etc and made most of the tabloids in Britain. Englishrose 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if it wasnt deleted last time, I see no reason for it to be this time. Jcuk 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, essentially the same article, under a different name, was deleted last time. There have been two AFDs, on this topic. The first was "no consensus" (one voter has said they would change their vote if done again). The second AFD result was consensus to delete. --Rob 23:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • notwithstanding your comment about Sharon Tendler, Cindy the Dolphin was not deleted. Therefor on the basis that THIS article was not deleted last time it was AfD, regardless of what happened to related but seperate articles, my vote stands. Jcuk 23:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm sure I voted to keep this a few days ago, and as far as I could tell it had nothing to do with the legality of the ceremony but, from my point of view, the fact that the affair made world headlines. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Great story that deserves inclusion here. -- JJay 02:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - just cos it made the "weird news" headlines for a day or so doesn't make it notable. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This made more than just "weird news" headlines, I actually saw it on my local news, and I live in Maryland, USA. At least for a day I think every news establishment was running something on this, so it is notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn newsbrite -- Krash 18:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ephemeral story with no legal basis. Insignificant. Sliggy 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason to change my previous vote, someone obviously doesn't like this article =P --RBlowes 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentIn fairness the marriage isn't legal, thus there could be a reason to change ur vote but it is notable. And please, please stop following me;-). Englishrose 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reprisal Yes but I chose not to, and it's not my fault you keep sticking your nose into every topic I decide to vote in. =p --RBlowes 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiTabloid Delete this severely unencyclopedic page. Stifle 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stupid publicity stunts aren't generally encyclopedic, and the fatuous argument linking it to the issue of same-sex marriages pushes me right over the brink into voting delete. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  15:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly an odd story, but I think the likelihood of this being useful at some point in the future is reasonably high. -Colin Kimbrell 04:56, 18 January 2006 (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.