Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babu (red panda) (2nd nomination)

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 merge with Birmingham Nature Centre.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babu (red panda)

Babu (red panda) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This panda escaped for four days and made the news for a couple more. No lasting impact, no encyclopedic value, however. An interesting story, but ultimately quite trivial. Biruitorul (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep (edit)Merge and redirect to zoo article about Birmingham Nature Centre.(end edit) In the earlier AFD, I argued for keeping the article on the basis that there were several stories in reliable sources with substantial coverage about the escape/capture. Since then, I have revised my views per the essay WP:NOTNEWS to say that just because there was a flurry of coverage of some cute animal, some crime, or some bizarre water cooler story, that news coverage does not automatically entitle the subject to a permanent encyclopedia article. However, in addition to the coverage of the escapes and recaptures, there has been coverage of the animal as an attraction at the zoo independent of the "pandamonium" created by the escape, as shown by some of the "non-escape" coverage disclosed in the Google News archive. A zoo animal is not inherently "non-notable." Edison (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment If a person, thing, or animal has some reliable sources, but seems to amount to a stub, merger into a broader article is appropriate. No prejudice against splitting out a separate article if future coverage provides info for espansion. Edison (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A fair point, but isn't that 2003 BBC page for children? And I agree, a zoo animal is not inherently non-notable, but there's a big gap between Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing (who clearly are notable due to their political connections) and this one. Biruitorul (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: WP:NOTNEWS isn't a guideline, it's an essay. The article clearly passes WP:N and unless WP:NOTNEWS becomes a guideline, the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. Justin ^chat 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, and WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which, I may add, WP:IAR is, so the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. More to the point: many subjects could be encyclopedia articles but aren't -- simply because Babu may happen to fit WP:N doesn't translate into a requirement that we keep an article on him. Our goal is, or should be, to create an intelligent, scholarly work, and including mention of what is in essence a curious but rather trivial incident in my view cheapens rather than enhances the project. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? By pointing out WP:IAR is a policy and WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS aren't you prove MY point. Babu does fit within WP:N. It may not fit within WP:NOTNEWS, but since WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a guideline (or policy), no one has to conform to it. It passes WP:N and it doesn't fail any other notable policy, so my vote stands. WP:NOTNEWS sounds far too much like I don't like it to me. Justin ^chat 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Hardly. IAR can be invoked in the event that a lesser policy (which all are, except NPOV and DICK) prevents the building of a better encyclopedia. As WP:N is doing that in this case, I'm here to remind us that IAR takes precedence and mandates deletion or at least merger. Biruitorul (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Birmingham Nature Centre, just drag and drop. Within the history of that centre this is a noteworthy event, but there's nothing to suggest that an entire article needed for Babu. If there were wider ramifications and links to other subjects that'd be one thing, but all I can see is "we seem to be missing a critter", "what's that up that tree?" and "fetch a stick, a bloody big one". Fine, but we don't need the thing's life history. Someone another (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Nice catch, I didn't realize there was a related article already, my reasoning is per WP:DICT as opposed to WP:N, but a merge is more appropriate either way. Justin ^chat 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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.