Deletion of Goat people

Comment: to List of hybrid creatures in mythology.  There needs to be some form of / page for the various human-goat hybrids of mythology, but the current article at Goat people does a poor job of it and the title isn't ideal
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB||WP:SAL)

Comment: Perhaps it needs a better title, but having a list of mythical human-goat hybrids seems like an encyclopedic thing to me.  Maybe we're in  territory, but whatever
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: The nomination doesn't provide any reason to delete; just some pointers for article improvement per our |editing policy.  It's easy to find more sources for this |broad concept: ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kVShTntxrowC&pg=PA107 Goat people; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LbqF8z2bq3sC&pg=PA264 The Classical Tradition''; &c.  Note also that https://twitter.com/hashtag/goatification goatification was a thing at the last Wikimania
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:BROAD)

Comment: Another unsourced OR nightmare. "broad concept" (as mentioned by Andrew Davidson in his canvassing message https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list&diff=prev&oldid=830026656 here) doesn't make any more sense than https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_Lady_(character)&diff=828401316&oldid=828344573 the last time he brought it up (or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swamp_monster&diff=824808469&oldid=824749025 the time before that) -- if a topic is never described by a particular term in reliable sources, it is a violation of  for us to describe it that way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I honestly looked for reasons to rename and merge this. Maybe there were a number of objective |scholarly works that included all the goat people listed in the article, and discussed their common traits, significance in folklore, etc? But no, there aren't multiple sources making this distinction to justify Wikipedia creating this list and classification. I agree the original article was like something written by a high school kid, and sourced to things like the http://grimm.wikia.com/wiki/Ziegevolk invented language of a TV show. Others have tried to patch it up with sources that only address satyr plays, etc. While it's true that articles like (totally unsourced) List of piscine and amphibian humanoids exist, that's not a compelling reason (to me) for creating one more
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRIND)

Comment: While at first glance it might seem like a worthy article, it actually contains nothing at all of interest or notability. This is simply a list of mythological creatures - moreover, augmented by duplication of material, e.g. Pan is a satyr and does not merit a separate listing. There are no ciations, no links nothing. This could perhaps be a valid idea for an article if there are scientific or other sources expanding about the concept of people presented as goats in human mythology or biology :-) out there. Until then, this is yet another article |indiscriminately created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)