This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Anotopterus sp. (2008)
- Anotopterus sp. (2008) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This isn't a real fish.
The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:
...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.
Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.
— Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg ( talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Mordella auropubescens
- Mordella auropubescens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA ( talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to [1] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See
https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (
marine,brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've found the original description. [2] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
2024 zebra escape
- 2024 zebra escape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte ( talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom
- Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92 Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace ( talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace ( talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep, meets
WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week,
Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest).
Randy Kryn (
talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage.
Gottagotospace (
talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't get much more widespread than
BBC +
The Guardian +
Smithsonian, AP, CNN,
etc etc ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't get much more widespread than
BBC +
The Guardian +
Smithsonian, AP, CNN,
etc etc ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage.
Gottagotospace (
talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the few lines about the impact on the town and the "zebra specials" to the article on North Bend, Washington, otherwise this is a non-notable event. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝 🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sustained coverage issues 104.7.152.180 ( talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely fails NOTNEWS as a trivial "and finally" story that is unlikely to have sustained coverage. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and selective merge to North Bend, Washington largely per WP:NOPAGE and due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that is unlikely to form. Frank Anchor 22:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Redemption Paws
- Redemption Paws ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb ( talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability.
Silver
seren
C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb ( talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [3] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news ( WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92 Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
- 39 dogs that survived Hurricane Harvey now in Toronto area
- How Canadians Are Rescuing Homeless Dogs from Hurricane Harvey
- They've got it ruff; Rescue dogs to be euthanized if they can't cross border
- Puplifting conclusion; Federal minister steps up to save pooches
- 'Difficult' dogs failed by charity, fosters allege ( Page 2)
- These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Anotopterus sp. (2008)
- Anotopterus sp. (2008) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This isn't a real fish.
The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:
...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.
Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.
— Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 24. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg ( talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Mordella auropubescens
- Mordella auropubescens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA ( talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega ( talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to [1] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew ( talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See
https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (
marine,brackish) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've found the original description. [2] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess ( talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
2024 zebra escape
- 2024 zebra escape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte ( talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom
- Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92 Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace ( talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace ( talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep, meets
WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week,
Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest).
Randy Kryn (
talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage.
Gottagotospace (
talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't get much more widespread than
BBC +
The Guardian +
Smithsonian, AP, CNN,
etc etc ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't get much more widespread than
BBC +
The Guardian +
Smithsonian, AP, CNN,
etc etc ---
Another Believer (
Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage.
Gottagotospace (
talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the few lines about the impact on the town and the "zebra specials" to the article on North Bend, Washington, otherwise this is a non-notable event. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝 🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sustained coverage issues 104.7.152.180 ( talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely fails NOTNEWS as a trivial "and finally" story that is unlikely to have sustained coverage. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and selective merge to North Bend, Washington largely per WP:NOPAGE and due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that is unlikely to form. Frank Anchor 22:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Redemption Paws
- Redemption Paws ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb ( talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability.
Silver
seren
C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb ( talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [3] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news ( WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92 Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
- 39 dogs that survived Hurricane Harvey now in Toronto area
- How Canadians Are Rescuing Homeless Dogs from Hurricane Harvey
- They've got it ruff; Rescue dogs to be euthanized if they can't cross border
- Puplifting conclusion; Federal minister steps up to save pooches
- 'Difficult' dogs failed by charity, fosters allege ( Page 2)
- These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)