Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle at Kruger


 * 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. John254 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle at Kruger

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I had previously prodded this article because of dubious notability. My main concern is that this article has no lasting notability. It has had its supposed 15 minutes of fame and there really isn't anything else to say about it. Also, it's kind of funny that it even has an infobox military conflict. Aside from that, it isn't nearly as significant as any other internet meme. Axem Titanium 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination with regards to User:Krator's idea to merge the article with Kruger National Park. Axem Titanium 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep BDahlstrom the video appeared on the BBC news site. This probably moves it beyond the 15 minutes of fame category.
 * Delete A popular video on YouTube does not equal notability in Wikipedia. Spellcast 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Profiled in depth on ABC's new iCaught show. 15 minutes of fame is still fame. Clean up the silliness and keep it brief. Fagstein 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Spellcast. WP is not a web guide, much less a YouTube guide. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete having a popular video on YouTube doesn't make you notable, Oysterguitarist 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Jay Bookman writes four or so paragraphs on the video in the Atlanta Journal - Constitution  in an opinion piece about our changing relationship with animals.TreeKittens 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ok Time actually has two articles on the video: and  which discuss it in some depth and with some context. I think this video is notable enough for inclusion. TreeKittens 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:N, it is suggested Wikinews cover topics which receive a "short burst of present news coverage." Yet, Battle of Kruger is at least as notable as some of the other videos under Category:YouTube videos, which are not being deleted. Having a video on YouTube doesn't make you notable, but does several months of sporadic media attention change that? Time covered the video on June 7, and it was featured again on I-Caught tonight. With National Geographic creating a documentary on the video, it is probably going to receive even more media attention, so is this video's 15 minutes of fame really over? --Mad Max 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several mainstream media references about this video. Isn't that what deems an entry worthy of inclusion?  Moreover, it is not simply a U-tube video, but a significant bit of insight into the animal world.  That said, the Wikipedia entry should focus more on putting the content of the video in context.  Comments from behavioral zoologists would be welcome.  The little "conflict box" belongs in a blog, not in Wikipedia, and should be deleted, or at least the spelling should be corrected.  (It's a "herd" of buffalo, not a "heard" of buffalo, and the "heard" of lions is doubly wrong- the correct term is a "pride" of lions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.87.177 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak delete unless more reliable sources are cited. Once the documentary is released, it may warrant inclusion. Now, however, it's just another Internet meme. Keep. Sources look good and are certainly reliable. YouTube videos, in general, are not notable. However, this one has coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as the BBC and Time Magazine, and an upcoming National Geographic documentary. Bart133 (t) (c) 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Infobox Military Conflict has been removed. YouTube videos are not military conflicts. Bart133 (t) (c) 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom youtube videos should not have articles unless reliable sources are found.Harlowraman 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that reliable sources have been found and are mentioned above. These include an in-depth article on the video by Time magazine, quoting experts in animal behaviour. There is also an article in Atlanta Journal discussing the video. This article topic easily passes WP:N and the content can easily be verified by reference to reliable third-party sources independent of the subject. Please read the sources given above. Best regards TreeKittens 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that there are several reliable sources on the video, and an upcoming documentary, it should be kept. Sxeptomaniac 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 7,500,000 views does seem to make it notable. Also it is an educational subject not some guy lighting his farts like on many Utube movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmm6f488 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep I've had time to think about it. I don't think any of the current arguments for deletion are convincing.--Mad Max 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the articles, not youtube hits Corpx 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable video with millions of views. Video has received media coverage in notable magazines, television programs, and websites.  --musicpvm 09:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- more people have seen this movie than many of the TV programmes with individual episode articles Astrotrain 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Sxeptomaniac. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mondo Keep - per the BBC --Toussaint 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - very notable - as of today, it is the most read BBC News article. - ARC Gritt TALK 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - its all over the news here in the UK - TV, Newspapers, etc. Robert C Prenic 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- If the BBC finds it so important, as well as the media, then keep it. Add that this is NOT the only time it has happened.--Simfan34 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The video is notable --Onceonthisisland 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The video is extremely notable, Its popularity has exploded with articles at ABC news, Time and BBC.  Not only is it notable as a small look into the natural world, it holds deeper meaning to many people Yearsago 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A month ago I would have said, "internet meme, borderline keep", but it's become much more well known since then and is probably going to be something like the top internet video of 2007. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very important example of the current shift in media towards internet video - this will be cited in many a history of such subject matter, and it is right that facts surrounding the video are recorded.
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 08:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The widespread media coverage of this seems evidence of it's notability to me. Cogswobble talk 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is the fastest growing YouTube video ever. In about only 3 months, has become the most viewed, discussed, favorited, and linked in YouTube's animal category.  It has been featured in over a dozen major media outlets, including BBC, ABC, Time Magazine, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail.  The owner of the video is a well-respected photographer.  National Geographic just received a license to make a documentary about the Battle at Kruger.  This is clearly worthy of Wikipedia.  Jschlos talk  18:58, 10 August 2007 (EST)
 * Merge into Kruger National Park, because it will be impossible to expand the article to decent status. Does deserve coverage on Wikipedia though. --User:Krator (t c) 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a really good idea. I withdraw my nomination. Axem Titanium 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that merging to Kruger National Park would be highly inappropriate. I don't even think a mere 'See also' link would be relevant. What relevance does the video have to the park, except that it was filmed there? The cited sources all see the video as relevant as a cultural phenomenon, and as an insight into some rather counter-intuitive animal behaviour. What is your rationale for this merge? Are you suggesting that the cited sources do not establish notability under WP:N? Are the sources not sufficiently reliable or independent? TreeKittens 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with merge for reasons stated by TreeKittens. - ARC Gritt TALK 11:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a separate article the coverage from the National Geographic in particular is more than enough for independent notability. First YouTube video where I've said keep--never thought it would happen. DGG' (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that significant improvements have been made to the article since it was listed here. Thanks TreeKittens 21:08, 11 August 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.