Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eno the Emu


 * 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 as WP:NOTNEWS. No prejudice against future recreation if new sources in subsequent months/years show WP:SUSTAINED coverage. RL0919 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Eno the Emu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails pillar policy WP:NOT. This isn't a collection of random trivia. A domesticated animal escaped captivity. So what? Google trends is in no way an indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nominator. In no way is this animal notable. Meatsgains (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- I wrote the article. It's been getting a good deal of news attention and has been used as a symbol by at least one marketing campaign, which points towards it having staying power. The emu has been mentioned repeatedly in local news, and occasionally in national and global news agencies. At the very least, one could merge this and some of the other just-barely notable animals into a List of escaped domesticated animals; I would be fine with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcavoybickford (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, when i saw this i initially thought of course this shouldn't have an article as WP:NOTNEWS but on looking at the sources its been reported on since early/mid July, its still being covered at mid/late August by local, national, and international sources (even Aussies are picking it up - "Emu on the lam has US authorities in a fluster"), so the question now is whether this passess WP:SUSTAINED ie. "If reliable sources cover a person (or emu?) only in the context of a single event, and if that person (or emu?) otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Note: i am staying neutral on this as the thought of one of these "big balls of feathers" alluding authorities for months is so funny as to be article-worthy, definitely not a wikireason for keeping. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, mentioned in the news and a great story. Thanks for the article - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject fails WP:1E, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM. There is no reason for this article as of right now. However, five years from now if it's still getting WP:SIGCOV I will support recreation. See also WP:NORUSH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Ad Orientem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2019 (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.