Delete-the entire purpose of this entry was to insult a GameFAQs mod. Not only does this have absolutely no basis in fact, but it is also made by some very disgruntled people. This should be deleted.
The only thing Google brings up when you search for "Sashanan" is the GF mod and sites were he has been a member - Delete this useless entry
Totally without any basis in fact. Just a joke entry designed to be very mean.
As funny as it is, it's indeed a joke page that's made up.
I propose we preserve this page as a example of "How to design well-made joke articles."
I propose that, although there may very well be a "famous" GameFAQs user (if such thing exists) who is aware of the myth, that a definition of such a myth is not inherently "insulting" to anyone who uses this, online. The name is also used (derived from the original Dutch mythology) in Quest for Glory 2, which presumably explains the provenance of the name on such a site. It is hardly appropriate if, for example, someone who uses "Mr Punch" as a username online should complain to Wikipedia about the appalling level of violence associated with such a name, on this site. The value of this article, too, is to educate those who have no idea of such a folklore figure, which seems to number in the threes.
I agree with the sentiment that the article should be preserved to educate those who don't know the Dutch mythology. Just because it's some "famous GameFAQs user" took the name Sashanan doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. For instance, "Cthulhu" is a mythological god that many users on message boards take for a username. Cthulhu isn't necessarily a favorable god since he has been rumored to be a "devourer of souls." If someone complained from another internet message board saying that the article on Cthulhu should be removed because it portrays them in a negative light, I highly doubt the artcle would be removed. This is because, just like Sashanan, Cthulhu is a character rooted in mythology and perhaps the user that chose that name should have thought more into it before doing so. In conclusion, I believe that this article should remain on Wikipedia, regardless of whether some "GameFAQs" user took the name without knowing its full meaning. Thank you.
Delete- No value as an article. No sources are cited, and the latter paragraphs make it apparent it's a joke.Toffile
Delete - There is no such mythological figure, dutch or otherwise. Those arguments would be fantastic if there were actually any root in reality of the entry. Instead, it is a well-written but completely fallacious article. None of the statements about Dutch mythology have any basis in history. They are just handily written to be a malicious jab at an individual.
Just because a myth is not well-known ("no such mythological figure") doesn't seem like a very good reason to erase it from Wikipedia. Surely the purpose of such a site as this is to educate and inform, even about even mythic figures? Even those who exist through fairy-tales, passed down by word of mouth ("have any basis in history"). It seems unfortunate that such oral history and culture should be erased from existence, merely because it isn't "written down".
Oral history and culture are important to be sure. However, this particular "legend" is not oral history or culture in the traditional sense. It is not old. It hasn't been passed down through generations. It is merely a product of a clever mind and its desemination is a disservice to the users of the site and a black mark on the idea of wiki journalism. The fact that without any substantiation or documentation purely fanciful and incorrect information is allowed to be posted without review is a serious cause for concern for the idea of a wiki fact site. Just because something isn't written down doesn't mean that there is no substantiation. Other oral histories, myths and fairy tales are documented through cultural studies - not necessarily written down by those continuing the oral tradition. Just because you claim that something has basis in historic mythology doesn't mean that it actually has it.
Why don't you sign your comments so that we can see who you are? It doesn't lend your arguments much credibility if you refuse to make yourselves known as the source.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but if one simply looks through the pages of Italic textEuropean Mythological Gods and Goddesses', then you will see that this is in fact a true mythological figure.CNash22:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dutch, and I've never heard of anything like this before. In fact, even the image is just a photoshopped picture of the mod. If there really is a mythological figure called Sashanan, then it's nothing like the description says.
