Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Freeway chickens


 * 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Personal note. There's currently a flock of chickens right outside my house. Perhaps I should write an article about them :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Freeway chickens

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Rschen7754 04:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hollywood Freeway. This interesting subject can get a brief mention there.  Dough 48  72  04:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. There are four in depth articles in the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source, as well as Three books (the top three) that go in depth about the subject of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG isn't an end-all be-all; there isn't enough to write a substantial article. (note the "presumed"). --Rschen7754 21:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per RightCowLeftCoast; this is a well-known piece of Los Angeles urban lore, covered in a wide variety of media outlets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Warden (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Undecided There are no in-line citations. Of the sources provided, two have a non-serious tone (more storytelling than reporting, without primary sources given, and in one case illustrated by a drawing masquerading as a photo). The third is Snopes which is a Reliable Source but IMO does not really demonstrate notability. I'll see if I can find some better sources. Also the article needs rewriting in a more encyclopedic tone. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The chickens are clearly notable; they received nationwide publicity during the 1970s. I have cited half a dozen news stories in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hollywood Freeway. Would fit nicely as a section there, as that is the notable topic of which this is a facet of. One has to ask, if this content was already in that article would you consider it large enough to become a content-fork? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  20:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not only does it easily pass WP:GNG with the significant and national coverage from multiple sources, the significant coverage spanned decades, not just a "flash in the pan story" of a bunch a chickens that got loose one day. I wouldn't fight tooth and nail against a merge as long as all the content is preserved, but I generally think much of this material is out of place in the Hollywood Freeway article and can make that article too long. --Oakshade (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is notable, by evidence of sources. I better place to merge would be Feral chicken since that is the topic of interest not the freeway, although I think the article should stay as it is.Borock (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would oppose a merge, to Hollywood Freeway or anywhere else. This is an article about some feral chickens, not about a road, and there is no place in the Hollywood Freeway article where it would fit. Nobody has provided a reason to even discuss merging, since the subject easily passes WP:GNG on its own. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, likewise, doesn't demand an independent article for every topic under the moon. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,", and so per WP:GNG "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The burden is on you to explain why you think this article should be deleted/merged even though it meets WP:GNG. Is it just a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No... I clearly explained my position above; this is a content-fork, or a derivative article. It is a single noteworthy (as determined by WP:GNG) incidence that doesn't necessarily require a stand-alone article. WP:I don't like it wouldn't even apply here, as a redirect would place a reader's browser at the appropriate section of the target article, and no content would be lost in the process. Note, again as has been mentioned, the word "presumed": "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", and not "it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The point here is not deleting content, but organizing it with other, relevant content. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is a "single incidence"; the news coverage cited extends over a period of 30 years. Furthermore, there is no good place for this information in the Hollywood Freeway article, which is entirely about the road (as one would expect). The sections of the Hollywood Freeway article are "1 History, 2 The route, 3 Notable Features, 4 Legal definition, 5 Exit list." Where exactly are you going to put this non-automotive information? And WHY? --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1, 2 or 3. It would fit easily as a subsection in the Notable Features section. The article is about the road, its history, and the surrounding land. It includes important/notable events that happened or are happening along the road. The chickens are one of these kind of events. A single incidence doesn't mean one news story or at one point in time, it just means this is a single topic: The feral chickens under one overpass on the Hollywood Freeway. Even the title suggests that this is a content-fork of Hollywood Freeway! Why? Because the two topics are directly relevant to one another, and because this is an interesting story regarding the road, but certainly too disambiguous a topic (ie X in Y when we already have an incomplete Y article) for its own independent article. Combining the two produces one improved article, as opposed to one non-comprehensive article and one stub. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article under discussion here is not a "stub"; it is a fully developed article with eight references. (BTW it now describes TWO flocks of chickens under TWO overpasses; the adventure continues!) The "notable features" section of the Hollywood Freeway article refers to features OF THE ROADWAY, and the "history" section likewise is only about the road. I seriously disagree that combining the two would produce an "improved" article; I think this item (irrelevant to the Hollywood Freeway except for its name) would clutter the Hollywood Freeway article and make it worse. You and I disagree on this; let's see what consensus says. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a summary and a main link to this article in the article about the Hollywood Freeway, but I don't see reason to merge it. The colony of feral chickens are notable enough on their own, and appear to have originated independent of the article about the road itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best way to handle this topic. And it's a correct observation that this wasn't a fork from the Hollywood Freeway article, but this article developed independently. --Oakshade (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not saying it was intentional by any means, I was just saying that if this were already a section in the Hollywood Freeway article, would you try to split it out into a new article? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect as the topic does not have enough reliable sources to support a separate article. Gillicutties (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Gillicutties (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How are the numerous sources with in-depth coverage about this topic from books and articles spanning several decades make it "not have enough reliable sources"?--Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is reliable, non-trivial, and found in multiple sources. I see no reason not to have an article on this. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2011 (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.