Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire watermelon

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Titoxd^(?!?) 03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire Watermelon

Is vampire watermelon even real? Some people are saying that it was invented by Terry Pratchett, but this article doesn't mention him. I can understand about the "vampirism" in inanimate objects, but this is just ridiculous. The Gwai Lo 20:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, if you had told me when I woke up this morning I would be voting strong keep for a wiki article on Vampire watermelon... As ridiculous as it sounds, it is sourced. [1] loads slowly, but on the righthand page you can see the reference. [2] mentions the context of the research. Pratchett is mentioned at the end of the article as popularizing the motif. I've got to say it stays.--Isotope23 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a pure argument from incredulity; we've been through this many times before, and the article has very clear attributions precisely because of previous doubters. -- ChrisO 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. "Is it real?" is not a criterion for deletion, or there would be a fair few articles on deities, games characters, debunked scientific theories and you-name-it up for deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and referenced article on folklore. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Real (albeit very odd) myth. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it doesn't seem to get a lot of unique, non-Wikipedia search results for a supposedly well known myth. Half of the top ten are Wikipedia mirrors and the later pages are similar, many of the other hits are weblogs and forums. No reputable sites jumped out at me. Also, the article admits only one factual reference exists. Articles on myths should be well sourced. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  This is a common problem with the ethnology of obscure or marginalised groups. The Kosovo gypsies were and still are very much a marginalised group in that part of the world - it's quite possible that Tatomir Vukanović, the man who recorded the myth, was the only ethnologist working with Kosovo gypsies at that time. In that sort of situation, you have to look to the reputation of the individual researcher to judge how likely it is that his account is above board. Vukanović does seem to have had a very solid reputation. -- ChrisO 07:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  That's a good point. That's why I added a comment instead of voting delete - I thought it would be unlikely a serious researcher would make it up. However, the ridiculousness of the myth is hard for me to get past. If he didn't make it up, I would suspect that it was a joke, a children's story or made up by another group to make gypsies look foolish. I'll vote keep unless it is disproven. -- Kjkolb 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Even serious researchers make mistakes. That's why there's such a thing as peer review. An encyclopedia should only report as fact things which are known to be true, not things which are yet to be disproven. This is not a tabloid. Another option would be to rewrite the article to make it clear that whether or not vampir watermolens are real folklore is unknown, but any efforts to edit the article in that direction are quickly reverted which is why I think deletion is the only valid option at this point. As it stands this article is a huge embarassment to Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 16:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I actually remember the discussion on this article from about a year ago. Check out the Talk and the talk archive. At one point we even had images of the pages from the source, albeit externally. I'm glad this is going through AfD so that we can document it in the talk and be done with it...again.  :) Wikibofh 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete There's only one source for this information. All other sources either come directly from the source or from sources that come from that one. See the Talk page for more detail. No one as been able find any corroborating evidence in spite of all the attention that's been given the page. Even things documented in scholarly sources need to be verified before anyone can claim they are true.--198.93.113.49 16:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP This article is highly accurate in content. My watermelons at home started to have vampiristic qualities and I didn't know why - until I read this article! It possibly saved my life. People need to be informed on this subject. It is well researched.

• Strong keep: Have to agree that, given the citations and source information, the article definitely should stay unless positively proven to be false. The fact that it strains one's credulity does not, in itself, represent a reason for deletion. (Thanks, Alex, for introducing me to the legend! You're amazing.)Xlucent 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep out of fear that the Vampire Watermelons will seek revenge for deletion.  BD2412 ^talk 20:41, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.