Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Australian zoo killings

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 merged without opposition. Content is now at Alice Springs Reptile Centre. Redirecting there for GFDL compliance. Sandstein 20:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Australian zoo killings

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

Wikipedia is not the news, and not this is unlikely to be of lasting interest even in Alice Springs. Grahame (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per... eh, they already said it. Way too early to judge whether this'll have any lasting significance - and chances are, it won't. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not the news. --Mhking (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh dear what a joke, like the next kid who runs over a cat. Notable of course if he killed a monkey.... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter what he killed, or what he did at all. If this has been substantially covered in the press—no matter how inconsequential the event may seen to you—it's notable. Here I am on the other side of the world, and I saw multiple articles about this in the press when it happened. If that's not notability, I don't know what is. Everyking (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep important, plus it is interesting. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Refer WP:INTERESTING. It would be helpful to understand why you consider it important. Murtoa (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial press coverage demonstrates notability beyond all doubt. Everyking (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... but substantial press coverage doesn't counter the claims that it's a one-off news story, thus falling foul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Murtoa (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. It is not a valid reason for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - In your opinion, how does being a "one-off news story" reduce its notability? How much news coverage do you feel is necessary to justify an article? If an event widely reported around the world is not deemed notable, then our definition of notability is meaningless. Let me just point out that the sources already listed in the article include Reuters, BBC News, The Guardian, and CNN. If a subject can get that much attention and still be deemed non-notable, then we have truly hopped headlong into the chasm of deletionism. Everyking (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not only notable for the amount of mainstream, global news coverage it received, but for also it's notability under several different subject areas, including zoos, juvenile delinquency, and 2008 in the history of Australia. Disclosure: I learned of this discussion on WR [1]. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please start an article about the Alice Springs Reptile Centre, so this rather trivial incident can be merged into a good article about the zoo. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On it. fish&karate 08:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Redirect to Alice Springs Reptile Centre. For GFDL attribution, there probably needs to be a history merge; if the closing admin doesn't feel confident in doing this (or if it's closed by a non-admin), poke me on my talk page and I'll take care of it. fish&karate 09:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete~~'Merge Many things get covered by the news. It doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here necessarily. This is a one-off event by the looks of things, that will soon be in the distant past. Try Wikinews if you want to write news articles (which this is). -- how do you turn this on 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't support merging/redirecting to the Reptile Centre article, then? Everyking (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good idea. Yes, merging would be a good idea, if it can be re-written in an encyclopedic manner. It's just not worthy of an article on its own. -- how do you turn this on 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information about this at Alice Springs Reptile Centre is plenty of coverage for this incident. Captain panda 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because the content was merged. We can't merge and delete—if you want to keep the content, you have to vote to either keep or redirect. Everyking (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the zoo. For a zoo, an event like this is of profound importance, but not so much outside of that context. The massive media coverage is more to do with the age of the person than the death of the animals. No need for history merge, just leave the redirect in place. A redirect won't harm anyone, remains a reasonable search term, and keeps a good record of our page history. History merges distort the usefulness of the history tab, since two different articles wind up intertwined there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously verifiable from multiple reliable sources around the world. Follows WP:NPOV and WP:NOR because it accurately reflects what the sources say. WP:NOTNEWS is merely an essay; this article meets all 3 of our core content policies and should thus be retained. *** Crotalus *** 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat the exact same thing under everyone's comment. Besides, the closing admin will know NOTNEWS is an essay. That's all that matters here. -- how do you turn this on 19:14, 11 October 2008 (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.