Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babu (red panda)

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 no consensus bordering on consensus KEEP Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Babu (red panda)

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

Story of minimal media interest and no encyclopedic value; sorry Babu your 15 minutes are over. Delete --Peta 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pandas are cute Josh Parris#: 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Meh.Keep Pandering to his cuteness, he caused notable pandamonium and got in the newspapers and on the telly. Edison 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And his lasting significance is? --Peta 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Babu panda gets 139,000 Google hits. Edison 06:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • All that proves is that the story got media coverage in the UK in 2006; it provides no indication of the lasting importance of the topic. --Peta 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Babu is the primary subject of 2 stories on the BBC and 2 newspaper articles. That constitutes "multiple independent, reliable and verifiable coverage as the primary subject" and thus satisfies Wikipedia's policy for notability. Unlike Babu, the majority of Wikipedia articles lack any references at all. Edison 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are guidelines for notability, not policy. And all policy and guidelines are primarily intended to help Wikipedia be an authoritative encyclopedia rather than a news report/cute story archive. Bwithh 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While I strenuously object to the idea that a lot of media coverage, however brief or trivial, automatically confers notability for the ages, many editors do feel this way and many articles get kept on the basis of that argument.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Goldie the Eagle's reputation over an identical incident has survived for 40 years, and I think Babu has the same chance of immortality. Tevildo 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1) You're making a Pokemon defense argument and 2) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (you think Babu has the same chance of "immortality" (?!?!?!????????)) Bwithh 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I was making a general comment about notability, in reply to Peta's comment "your 15 minutes are over". Nobody will remember, say, Leona Lewis in eighteen months time, but she's article-worthy. People still remember Goldie 40 years after the event. It's possible that Babu will be forgotten; but it's not as clear-cut as some people here seem to think it is. Tevildo 10:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a crystal ball obviously does not apply to AFD (or any talk page for that matter). Really, to say we can't speculate anything on discussion pages is ridiculous--the 100-yr test is based on total speculation. Also, I don't see a Pokemon defense here, he's offering support for his speculation, that a similar case may pass the 100-yr test, which is much more than anyone else here is doing. hateless 08:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Oh good grief. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a cute animal story archive. Trival news items and trivial polls do not make for encyclopedic notability. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. No encyclopedic value as per nom. I'm skeptical about the Goldie article as well. I'll check into it. Bwithh 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - why should I care, especially in a hundred years' time? MER-C 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Without specifically addressing the merits of this article, I tend to think that when a topic is verifiable, especially from unquestionable reliable sources, we should never rely solely on the five/ten/twenty/hundred years' test to justify deletion. Because Wikipedia does not have "editions", we do not rotate content as do print encyclopedias. This feature is valuable in the context of historiography. Serpent's Choice 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - sourced, presented in mayor nationwide media. WP is not a paper book, we have place enough even for Babu.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep per "multiple independent, reliable and verifiable coverage as the primary subject" Jcuk 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, encyclopaedic with plenty of reliable sources. This article is stupid is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it made media coverage that much then I think it's significant enough. It deserves to be in wikipedia. --Melanochromis 07:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep even though penguins are cuter. .V. (talk) 14:59, 13 January 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.