Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinchilla rescue centres


 * 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. Arguments for keeping the article are irrelevant to the matter at hand. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinchilla rescue centres

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable phenomenon. See this Google news archive search. The allegedly notable example is also non-notable. See this Google news archive search. Bongo matic  02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I declined a G11-speedy deletion request after the article had some clean-up; however, I see nothing that indicates this might be notable per our requirements. Lady  of  Shalott  03:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP this is just typical of the kind of ignorance we fight every day in chinchilla rescue centres. Some people even think chinchillas are dogs. Shallot lady, you know chinchillas have a mean bite, right? 75.76.162.50 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm gravely mistaken, meanness of bite is not a criterion of WP:Notability. Lady  of  Shalott  03:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I say so reluctantly. There seems to be little of note here. Also, I have the feeling that there is sock puppeteering going on here--my wife keeps reminding me to put them in the hamper. BTW, Lady of Shalott, I'm reading The Bride of Lammermoor. I have the feeling that one also is going to end badly. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. Horrible things, chinchillas. Best turned into coats, stoles and muffs. Crafty (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close The nom describes this organization as a "phenomenon" which could be highly prejudicial to evaluating the devoted work of the animal lovers organizing to provide sanctuary for this wonderful species. Also, it's obviously past the Dr. and the lady's bedtimes, so their views should be discounted heavily. Does "muff" mean something different in other parts of the world than it does here, because I'm concened about what may or may not be implied by the suggestion of making them into "muffs". Chinchillas are people too. They have the same needs for shelter and a loving home as other small mammals. I think the only appropriate close at this point is a no consensus and we can revisit the subject again in a few months after we've had more time to reflect on it and investigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A muff is a muff is a muff. Crafty (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference is intended to be to the first item at the disambiguation page, not the sixth or seventh. Bongo  matic  05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you be sure? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear CoM wants a few months of muff investigation. A most laudable endeavour. Crafty (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Crafty, the mere thought of CoM having even closer interactions with others (human or canine) is somewhat disturbing. He once went on a joyride with User:MichaelQSchmidt, and I believe MQS still hasn't recovered. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Canine? Apart from your habit of mixing up species I'd like to remind you that we aren't in Amsterdam any more. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Updating my view to delete. The chinchillas and their protectors are best kept safe from the sordid happenings on Wikipedia. Perhaps some day these efforts will be recognized as notable and given the respect they deserve. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Animals are cool - they should be protected. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I respect their cause but it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (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.