Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halyn

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 delete. Daniel 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halyn

Halyn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is one out of a series of articles about whales at SeaWorld, and in my opinion it fails WP:N by far. The article goes entirely unsourced. It is true that some press coverage mentioning this whale exists (maybe not for every detail of the article); but I would count this towards the notability of SeaWorld, not of the individual animal. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, neither for humans nor for whales. A merger discussion ended without clear consensus; and in fact there is not much that could reasonably be merged. While I personally think that the case for deletion is quite clear, this should be thoroughly discussed since it might affect more articles. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Individual animals in captivity can sometimes be notable, just as individual companion animals can, and this is an example. There are only 47 orcas in captivity, they all have names, they are known individually and have individual characteristics, the genealogical information is a very small part of the article--though it shouldn't have been at the top--and there are responsible sources for information. [1]DGG (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that individual animals can be notable in some cases, when there's really exceptional coverage around. But why does that hold for each of these 47 orcas? I am fine with an article Orcas at SeaWorld, or Orcas in captivity, and that one could as well contain a table with all 47 animals, but having one article per animal just seems to be one level of detail too much, in my point of view. Actually, the genealogic information seems to be a good part of the article, spread out into multiple sections, and much of the rest is trivial, and partly speculation (just see the section "Halyn's story"). In short, I don't think there is much encyclopedic to tell about individual orcas. --B. Wolterding 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial. I can't see how this whale is notable. Perhaps we could merge it into Orcas at SeaWorld. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete b/c it sounds like a promotional article to me. Significant amount of edits were done by anon users. (Wikimachine 13:47, 11 July 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.