Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson (Rhinoceros)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nelson (Rhinoceros)
An better attempt to assert notability is made here than with his friend Enzo, but Nelson is still not yet notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A rhino who just lived 9 days is not good enough to have an article. Huge media coverage didn't result in any google hits except answers which just has the same wikipedia article --Ageo020 02:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I would support this article if we could have some sources. My web search turned up nothing.  Mango juice talk 02:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: These are negative results.  Rhinos are very, very hard to breed in captivity.  One that survives to mating age would be notable.  The furore created over the efforts to save the baby's life are now ancient history, and there is no indication that it has had a lasting effect.  Delete for that reason: the subject is not inherently notable, and the stir caused has not left a mark.  Geogre 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The media coverage was in Swedish, and unless you search using Swedish keywords, you won't find anything (or not much anyway). Try replacing "rhinoceros" with one of the words "noshörning", "noshörningen", "noshörningsunge", or "noshörningsungen". up+l+and 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tups, I am absolutely sure that you're right. The question is whether this is a good article for the .en Wikipedia.  Since the rationale boils down, at this point, to "was a major cultural happening," it's a fair question to look for effects of that furore, to ask if it passed from "in the news" to "historical event."  It's therefore somewhat fair to ask if English references exist to justify an entry in an English language encyclopedia.  Geogre 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree in principle. In my view, Wikipedia should have a global scope regardless of language version. And the lack of English-language sources (or at least easily available or googlable sources) is actually a problem with many obscurish topics of real historical importance. up+l+and 12:19, 28 July 2006 (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.