Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Exmoor


 * 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   speedy keep. Even though one editor opines this AfD should run 7 days I'll be bold and close it: Sole deletion rationale has been convincingly refuted, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of Exmoor

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

My fundamental objection is WP:NOTNEWS. This animal has just been shot and killed. Until today it had little or no coverage anywhere. The fact that it only made the news because it was killed means its notability is questioned and it doesn't deserve an article. Simple Bob (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep largest known land animal in Britain seems like a worthy claim to notability for me. Also, this source was published in 2009 regarding the stag's notbaility.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable ecological piece, has a twinge of WP:NOTNEWS but that can be fixed by clean up. It has established notability. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of notability and coverage. Maybe a little newsy but as it's likely no bucks as large as this one remain he should maintain his fame indefinitely. Beach drifter (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- clearly notable. Just because it's in the news doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP:NOTNEWS; this is clearly of enduring interest and relevance. Can we get a snow close on this AfD so as not to scuttle the article's chances at WP:DYK? Reyk  YO!  21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - why bypass due process just so you can get a DYK? The AfD should be left to run its course. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't affect the DYK chances anyway. If it qualifies, all that happens is that it get's put in a holding pen until the Afd concludes, before returning to the queue. MickMacNee (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "enduring interest": hmmm: I suspect it will get very few page hits in March 2012, but I doubt any of us will remember to check. Kevin McE (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, let it run its course. I just happen to think the most appropriate course would be for Simple Bob to recognize the emerging consensus and withdraw the nomination. Then perhaps a speedy close.  My 76 Strat  00:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep But anyone want to try an argument based on a variation of BLP1E?! Sources from before the shooting remove WP:NOTNEWS basis: Daily Mail 1, Daily Mail 2, The Times and Telegraph as above. Took an odd bit of searching to winkle them out mind... Bigger digger (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep purely on grounds of these articles prior to its death: the notion that one out of the 300,000 plus deer culled each year is of ecological importance, or that we need an article on the largest individual animal (but restrict that to land mammals) is ridiculous. Where is our article on the largest creature in Bolivia, or Chad, or Korea. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great Britain is an enclosed island, which means that land animals are more unique than the other countries you suggested, which have land borders with other countries. Also, the UK is home to the second largest number of Wikipedia's viewers, so it's obviously going to become a notable topic for an English encyclopedia.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition I would argue that Great Britain is in a unique position when it comes to large wildlife given its long history of human civilization and deforestation. Beach drifter (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK: what about Africa's largest individual? The largest land mammal in the Americas? A month ago hardly anyone could have told you what or where Britain's largest land mammal was, and today no-one can tell you the successor to the "title" in Britain. Nor can anyone verify with any confidence at all that this animal absolutely deserved the accolade: any measurements have been estimates made from a distance. Pure press hype, with negligible factual substance behind it, and no enduring importance.  However, the threshhold for GNG is reached by the press's willingness to publish meaningless stories, because agency sources pass on items that don't really deserve much more than local rag coverage and these provide cheap material with which to fill pages.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources published prior to this newsworthy event negate the concerns of WP:NOTNEWS and the fact of the current coverage coupled with the prior publications demonstrate notability beyond WP:1E. I am also concerned that AfD was the first reaction of the nominator. A read of WP:BEFORE indicates other actions might have been more appropriate.  My 76 Strat  23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep add this source BBC 2009, who interviewed Donnelly separately. So - enough early sources, each independent in multiple ways, enough depth, enough persistence, not-one-off.  And today, the Los Angeles Times has a photo of the front page of The Times UK, and its rather big pic of the Emperor (3 columns x 2/3? - nearly half-page anyways) and above-the-fold headline, constituting independent verification of the prominence of the coverage (on one rag anyways). --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Had the coverage related solely to the animal's death, then I could be persuaded that NOTNEWS was a valid arguement. The 2009 coverage gives notability by reason of continued coverage. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:44, 27 October 2010 (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.