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.
Renominated as soft deletion was contested. Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS (no. 2). Event did not have lasting effects. Could be merged, partly, into the covid pandemic article in Chile.
Bedivere (
talk)
15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article does not fall under
WP:NOTNEWS beacause; 1) it is not original reporting, 2) the event was indeed rare and notable enough to be covered by numerous sources, 3) "Who is who" does not aply 4) It was never gossip. The nomination seems to me a misuse of the shortcut
WP:NOTNEWS. There is plenty of article about events without much obvious lasting significance such as the
1949 Tierra del Fuego earthquakes or the
2022 Tierra del Fuego wildfire, or let's say any random animal or plant species. The fact that such a rare thing occurred makes it notable, and reliable media in Chile and Spain rightfully recognised this.
Sietecolores (
talk)
17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Even though I don't believe it warrants its own article, there is no reason you cannot add this content to an appropriate article. If no other target exists,
South American cougar could use more information about the range of the animal, which could include appropriate discussions re its presence in Santiago in 2020.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk17:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of
TRIVIA and
Not the NEWS; as these events are an everyday, non-notable occurrence (animals are in towns all the time: bears in Duluth; bobcats in Topeka, and pumas in Santiago, etc.). 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GenQuest (
talk •
contribs)
The Current Biology paper only mentions the Santiago sightings but in fact refers to sightings in California. The other sources are just routine coverage.
Bedivere (
talk)
20:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)}reply
Bedivere, you got it wrong. There is no "routine coverage" of pumas walking into Santiago. Where did you get that idea from? The different battles of the war in Ukraine are more likely more of a "routine coverage".
Sietecolores (
talk)
21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Battles of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have enduring notability, for sure. Puma sightings in Santiago, although uncommon, do not merit a standalone article. Maybe, if enough sources are found (that Current Biology paper could be a great point of start) the article scope could be broadened to wild animal sightings in different parts in the world as a result of the pandemic. I would not be opposed to such an outcome.
Bedivere (
talk)
23:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is just trivia. Could be mentioned in a larger article about effects of the the corona lockdown on the wildlife around the world, but on its own it's just not relevant enough.
Tercer (
talk)
06:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already Soft Deleted so not eligible again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:33, 16 August 2022 (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.
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.
Renominated as soft deletion was contested. Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS (no. 2). Event did not have lasting effects. Could be merged, partly, into the covid pandemic article in Chile.
Bedivere (
talk)
15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article does not fall under
WP:NOTNEWS beacause; 1) it is not original reporting, 2) the event was indeed rare and notable enough to be covered by numerous sources, 3) "Who is who" does not aply 4) It was never gossip. The nomination seems to me a misuse of the shortcut
WP:NOTNEWS. There is plenty of article about events without much obvious lasting significance such as the
1949 Tierra del Fuego earthquakes or the
2022 Tierra del Fuego wildfire, or let's say any random animal or plant species. The fact that such a rare thing occurred makes it notable, and reliable media in Chile and Spain rightfully recognised this.
Sietecolores (
talk)
17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Even though I don't believe it warrants its own article, there is no reason you cannot add this content to an appropriate article. If no other target exists,
South American cougar could use more information about the range of the animal, which could include appropriate discussions re its presence in Santiago in 2020.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk17:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of
TRIVIA and
Not the NEWS; as these events are an everyday, non-notable occurrence (animals are in towns all the time: bears in Duluth; bobcats in Topeka, and pumas in Santiago, etc.). 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GenQuest (
talk •
contribs)
The Current Biology paper only mentions the Santiago sightings but in fact refers to sightings in California. The other sources are just routine coverage.
Bedivere (
talk)
20:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)}reply
Bedivere, you got it wrong. There is no "routine coverage" of pumas walking into Santiago. Where did you get that idea from? The different battles of the war in Ukraine are more likely more of a "routine coverage".
Sietecolores (
talk)
21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Battles of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have enduring notability, for sure. Puma sightings in Santiago, although uncommon, do not merit a standalone article. Maybe, if enough sources are found (that Current Biology paper could be a great point of start) the article scope could be broadened to wild animal sightings in different parts in the world as a result of the pandemic. I would not be opposed to such an outcome.
Bedivere (
talk)
23:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is just trivia. Could be mentioned in a larger article about effects of the the corona lockdown on the wildlife around the world, but on its own it's just not relevant enough.
Tercer (
talk)
06:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already Soft Deleted so not eligible again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:33, 16 August 2022 (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.