Deletion of Mermaid Problem

Comment: per nom.  Non-notable neologism violating  and lacking sufficient support under .  Also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS||WP:BALLS)

Comment: Calling something "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" may be useful shorthand when there's no controversy, but doesn't help much when there is. Please be specific about why you think the content of this article fails the criteria for inclusion (). I think the wide range of references (films, television, songs, books) are more than adequate to prove notability in this case. Just because "well-written" is not encyclopedic criteria, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't give pause when considering deletion. Writing an article well takes time and thought. Deletion is rather easier. If articles are more thoughtful than the deletions that efface them, wikipedia loses something
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: mdash; not simply |original research, but OR written Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)|"in universe
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is exactly the sort of thing that  does NOT refer to. It doesn't "advance a position" or present a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It doesn't fit any of the categories listed in . It's a bit trivial, sure, but not enough for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)