Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil (lion) (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 keep per WP:SNOW, per snow-close at last week's AfD, and per the original discussion. This has already had 7 days been thoroughly discussed and consensus is clearly against deletion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil (lion)
AfDs for this article:  
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

see also Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion

Per WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTMEMORIAL This warrants a full 7 day discussion. Just because some people have an personal attachment to this story does not give it encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia is not a pop culture blog. It is meant to be a repository of the worlds knowledge. There are many things individual people may care about and want included but we must adhere to a strict standard and this random lion who had no article or notability before he was killed does not make the cut. It's time to rid Wikipedia of all these excess articles. While the article is well written the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion therefore this article does not belong on here. I don't care about how much news coverage it has received the media makes whatever it wants to be important no matter how irrelevant it is. This lion will soon be forgotten and replaced with the next story of the week. On many AFD's whose subject clearly and definitively does not warrant an article I see fanboys/girls of the subject making up random excuses or citing reasons that do not meet Wikipedias guidelines for it to stay. Enough is enough and we must defend Wikipedias integrity.I believe there are many who will agree with me and ask that this be allowed to run the full 7 days and see how many delete votes there are and the strength of the arguments made in the keep votes. Comet1440 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep and rename back to Killing of Cecil the lion - that is what all of the coverage is about, it was renamed without consensus. The killing has led to significant, non-ephemeral, real world actions - from changing of policies about shipping trophy carcasses to legislation in Zimbabwe as well as discussions and analysis of the online mob behavior.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep under either name. The entire event continues to have repercussions beyond the news cycle, and has been a signal event in discussions of trophy hunting, conservation, and poaching. It would be remarkable that someone seeking reference on this event of global interest were unable to find mention of it on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I might also mention that the nominator's essaying and soapboxing seems to have little to do with Wikipedia and more to do with his emotions toward "the media". He says, "I don't care about how much news coverage it has received the media makes whatever it wants to be important no matter how irrelevant it is." He also appears to believe he can read the future when he says, "This lion will soon be forgotten and replaced with the next story of the week." A discussion over whether an article belongs on Wikipedia is fine, but trying to use such discussion to push one's feelings about "the media" is not really valid. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep & rename - TRPOD says it all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The event has proved to be more than just a one day-phenomenon, and has dominated its specific segment of the news (eco/animals) for the past week, coming onto the public from all different angles (human interest, but also politics and even legal aspects concerning hunting and extradition). In only a week's time, 14 different articles have been published on the main Belgian (Belgium!) news site about the killing of Cecil. If this event doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page, then the lines are blurred spectacularly as to what does.L E X commons (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep & rename. TRPOD makes valid points although I see little in the article about "online mob behavior". I think it is way too early for social analysts to assess the impact of the news of the killing. My question is, is having three deletion discussions in less than a week a record? Liz  Read! Talk! 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the online mob stuff hasnt been included, but its out there.        --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep or rename, don't care. I argued in the last AfD for the old name, but sources keep asserting the notability of the lion so the current title seems apt enough. But this AfD is pointy and has about a snowball's chance in hell. Nominator appears to misunderstand what AfD is... it's not a vote and it's not a place to air grievances. Her insistence of keeping it open for 7 days demonstrates this well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. TRPiD aka The Red Panda is Doomed  makes a good suggestion. Wikipedia didn't think Cecil was notable until he was dead. Shame he wasn't called Horace. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep as current name. The lion seems famous before his death. The death makes him more notable. The international reaction is immense, with airlines possibly changing their cargo and flight rules as a result. This is the third AfD in a week, which is now disruptive. Suggest speedy close, along with a moratorium on new AfDs on this article for six months or a year. Martin 4 5 1  21:04, 5 August 2015 (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.