Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal disposal of bodies in the water

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 merge to Disposal of human corpses. Courcelles 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal disposal of bodies in the water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-encyclopaedic and unreferenced ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.

• Delete per nomination. Original research, not supported by the one reference. Somebody finally comes up with a how-to article subject I can actually use, but it turns out to be original research. That makes me sad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment i really truly hope that this isn't original research. i'd hate to imagine what the author's lab looks like. kidding aside, i'm not sure that this actually is a case of wp:nothowto. it mostly seems to discuss regional variations in methods and specific cases where the methods have been used, and that seems encyclopedic to me. there is even an attempt to tie the subject into the larger culture, with the line about the unwed mothers. drowning unmarried pregnant women is indeed a major and exceedingly well-documented theme in anglo-american folk music over the last 8 centuries or so. i agree that it's badly unsourced, though. this doesn't strike me as too problematic, as it's not a blp. if it had sources and a rewrite, i think it would be fine. whether there exist such sources is a different question, and i think that that's the crux of the issue; is this original research? i may weigh in later with a !vote after more thought. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the subject itself is notable as a particular cultural phenomenon away from a general article on murder and/or disposing of bodies. Although as far as I can see there is no matching article for Disposing of Bodies generally anyway, of which this would be a child article if it was too large to be a section of that (non existant) article. I think it's essentially synthesis, combining disposal of bodies with water. I would support a merge with a general article on body disposal, but I don't think such an article exists?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is in fact this: Disposal of human corpses, although it's also not in super good shape. perhaps a merge would be reasonable? i'm not saying that it would be at this point, but just kind of enumerating possibilities. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so there is. I did a few searches and looked at some death articles, but couldn't see anything. I was looking for bodies rather than corpses though (and isnt that an odd phrase to be saying). A partial merge might be in order, but only a summary of this I'd say, not the whole article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a partial merge might be the best thing, but i still have to think. part of what bothers me about the article at hand is that the "illegal" part seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. it seems as if it should be a subsection of an article on disposal of bodies in water, but then (and here is where i feel myself talking myself into agreeing with you) it starts to seem that the "water" part, also seems wrong as a distinguishing factor. on the other side, the folksong aspect seems important to me (i know that this is only mentioned tangentially in the article, but it's important to the subject) and i don't see how the folksong angle fits in with an article on disposal of corpses, which makes water and illegal seem important again. more soon. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Disposal of human corpses. I'm willing to believe this could actually be a decent and interesting article in its own right, but as it stands now it'd be more helpful in an existing - though admittedly rough - general article. Otherwise it'll just be sleeping with the fishes etc. etc. Several Times (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Disposal of human corpses per Several Times. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, had I been aware of the other article I'd have put a merge proposal up instead of AfD, so now it's been pointed out I change my !vote to merge.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was all ready to close this AFD in line with the emergent consensus to merge, but after actually looking at it that strikes me as as extraordinarily bad idea. Look at the sources used, there is but one which simply verifies in that this has happened one time. The actual article content is written like an essay and appears to be mostly original research. I wasn't comfortable with merging that, so instead I've decided to weigh in in favor of deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are readily available as the article references specific cases, nearly all of which have their own well-sourced pages. Several Times (talk) 18:55, 8 September 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.