Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobo (The King of Currumpaw)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep per unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lobo (The King of Currumpaw)
Seems just to be documenting a plot storyline. If it should be included at all, then it should be included in the main article. asenine t/c 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The entry seems basically fine - a bit badly written (I wrote it) but a notable subject with references. Perhaps more of interest to older readers.(Is it OK to write here to keep entries one has written?). Would more links to other sources that refer to the story or more about the wolfs paw signature help? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC))
- Keep Notable author and reasonably well-known story. Henry Merrivale (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/Comment It would certainly be a pity to lose the information altogether, although it could perhaps be included under the entry for Ernest Thompson Seton. Lobo's death had an observable social impact: for example, the BBC broadcast a detailed David Attenborough documentary("Lobo - The wolf that changed America", part of the BBC's Natural World documentary series. Broadcast on April 2nd, 2008. See the BBC Website Entry.) on April 2nd 2008, explaining how the circumstances surrounding Lobo's capture and subsequent death prompted Seton to change his own attitude towards the significance and killing of wolves, and the knock-on effects this had for America at large. As a result, Lobo has both cultural and historical significance in his own right. More tenuously, it might perhaps be argued that Lobo's significance arises only because of the profound effect his death had on motivating Seton's subsequent behaviour; and that therefore Lobo's relevance is purely secondary, and no separate article should be included. However, if Lobo were a person, I'm not sure this argument would hold water. For example, Guy Fawkes is also (arguably) a secondary character, whose relevance lies in the knock-on effects of his capture and subsequent death, but he still merits his own entry. So why not Lobo? (Incidentally, the Seton article has the book "Wild Animals I Have Known" listed as 1898, not 1899.) Mike.stannett (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2008 (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.
