Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oink (water buffalo)


 * 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. There are a couple of arguments here that there does exist some measure of notability. While this may or may not be the case, there appears to be fairly strong opinion here that the weak notability being presented here is insufficient to pass inclusion criteria and thus there is sufficient consensus to delete. Shereth 22:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oink (water buffalo)

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

This animal has sadly suffered abuse, but it is not notable (enough for wikipedia) and is basically an article about a persons pet. The article is subject to repeated vandalism by the animals owner and continues to be reverted. It has a number of references, but mostly to local newspapers and tabloids. Carbonrodney (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom --Carbonrodney (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify; the article is about an animal that is very well known locally and now nationally. The vandalism is not being made by the animals owner - it is the animals previous owner who sold the animal and land for £7,000 now he is back claiming he didn't sell the land and Oink (even though the land registry says otherwise and his solicitors made an attempt at getting back the land over a year ago and failed, so I'm told).  It is clear that the previous owner is after either the money that was raised to protect the animal or he is just seeking the attention that the press has brought.  Finally, I would like to point out that this is a national story, not just local and that it featured on GMTV news - which isn't local.  That said, can you please REMOVE THE ARTICLE as per my first request 2 days ago as I don't want rumours spreading that are false.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As speedy deletion was declined, we need to go through this process, which could take up to five days. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I speedy deleted this article as a G3 (vandalism), seeing as it was a blanked article. I should have looked further back in the history, as I did not note this AFD or the fact that the vandalism tag was itself vandalism, albiet well intentioned. I've restored the article and am un-closing this debate, seeing as how it was my error that resulted in its closure. I also note that the article does not appear to conform to any of the Speedy Deletion criteria. This includes author request, as additional contributions have been made since the author created the article. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not yet ready to express a keep or delete opinion on this, though I would guess at this point I am leaning towards weak delete, if only that the article may be more trouble than it's worth, a net minus for the project by it's inclusion. But I really have no policy based reasons for leaning towards deletion.
 * In summary, we have a situation that appears to be getting at least minor national airplay in the UK. So the situation appears to me to satisfy notability concerns, although it's marginal notability.  We have real life legal situations around the issue, including apparently at least one lawsuit.  We have one of the participants in the situation repeatedly editing the page with his POV of the situation.  We have on the other side of things, the article's creator, who is totally frustrated by the POV edits, to the point where he just wants the article gone.  But there have been too many other people editing the article to allow for G7 speedy.
 * So, what happens next? It IMHO meets notability requirements, but I have to wonder just how valuable the page is to the encyclopedia, and whether it's valuable enough to keep when it's obvious that it will continue to be a magnet for people from both sides of the ral life legal fights.  At the moment then, consider me at weak delete, but I could be swayed either way by good arguments for or against deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can't believe this article has been undeleted. To quote TaxasAndroid "But there have been too many other people editing the article to allow for G7 speedy" - only one other person (Green Tentacle) has edited this article besides myself - all others were vandalising the page or undoing the vandalism.  It says in the guidelines that the original author can blank the page and it will be considered for deletion - this is why I blanked it.  I won't go into too much detail about this but yes there is a legal battle going on over the land and the police are currently looking for "Diggly".  I suggest you remove the article to avoid future vandalism by Diggly.  If you need more evidence, then please email me, don't discuss it here.  85.189.3.145 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was restore because we have rules on the project for how things are done, and deletion of articles is one of the more carefully handled situations. There are strict and narrow rules for when an article can be speedy deleted, and the article simply does not meet them.  The article was restored by the admin who deleted it this morning when I pointed out to him that he had mis-understood the situation.  The admin has admitted his mistake, and that he should not have deleted it in the first place.  As for the G7 author deletion, as soon as there are edits by other people, even one other person, that avenue is simply no longer valid.  Finally, as for Diggly's continued POV edits, I hesitate to call them vandalism, but they are indeed totally inappropriate.  I was considering locking down the page already, and have now done so.  This will prevent the continure POV edits from Diggly, and the abuse of the speedy deletion tags by Webbo2005.  When the AFD is complete, the article will either be gone, or unlocked for resumed editing.  Until then, there's really no point in allowing either side in this to continue to disrupt the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are wrong; "G7: Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Please read the policy carefully.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved party, I'd say that other parties have added "substantial content". shoy (reactions) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't done a very good job of reviewing the history otherwise you would know to say "party" not "parties" as only 2 people have added any content to this page; myself and Green Tentacle. All other edits were either by vandals or people un-doing vandalism.  As I have mentioned before, Green Tentacle only re-worded much of what I had written - which brings me back to question why it wasn't deleted under G7.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbo2005 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try one more time to explain this. It all boils down to how much additional editing, besides the article's original creator, does it take before G7 is invlaid.  And the answer is, very, very little.  Just about any edits by anyone else.  Green Tentacle's edits are enough.  G7 allows you to request deletion of your own work, but not that of others.  And parts of the article were not your work. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * G7 needs to be re-written to be more clearer then because that's not how it reads. I think that an article creator should be able to delete their own articles (in certain circumstances, such as this one as Oink is a local legend to me personally), regardless of who has since chipped in with formatting improvements and acts of vandalism.  That is my opinion please do not take it to heart. Webbo2005 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Indent) Bringing up a new wrinkle of this AFD vs G7 speedy situation for Webbo2005... In the longer term, for the sake of Webbo2005's desire to have the article gone and stay gone, an AFD will be much, much more effective.  With a G7 speedy, there's nothing really to prevent someone else from recreating the article either from scratch or from mirrors across the net.  And there would be nothing wrong with this.  With a notability AFD result, which certainly appears to be where this is headed, any recreation would have the force of the project's policies against it unless a recreation could show a signifigant increase in notability.  I personally mildly disagree that it is not notable, but I'm in the minority here, and expressed a weak delete anyway above.  Once this AFD is over in 4 days or so, the article will likely be deleted with much more weight in place against it's recreation.  And as for those 4 days, the article is protected, so Diggly will not be editing it in the mean-time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as mindless HumInt story. A brief article or two about an otherwise non-notable animal aren't enough; and PETA involvement is thoroughly irrelevant, gien they bandwagon every single animal story for the publicity. ThuranX (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the animal is not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Things appear in the national news all the time, they have to fill the time with something and when it is a quite day this kind of stuff has its 15 mins. But an encyclopedia article is forever and so interest that is fleeting is not grounds for an article IMO. If he's still in the news in a years time, I'll change my mind but for now, we need to delete. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit borderline. Similar to User:TexasAndroid, I would say to delete it if it is causing trouble, and keep if things calm down.  Of course, if it gets very famous then I guess we should keep it anyway; it does have a fair bit of news coverage so far.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 16:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - subject of multiple articles in major newspapers. "Interest is fleeting" and "humint" are not valid arguments for deletion. - Merzbow (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, we have an article from BBC news and another from the Telegraph, and yet another from the Guardian - all dedicated to the subject. If this is deleted, it's going to DRV for sure. - Merzbow (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with this, I still think it should be deleted under vandalism. Look guys, stop arguing over what is the best way to delete this article its just ridiculous.  At the end of the day, I put the article online in good faith - it was since edited by another person and vandalised by a few others (G7 controversially out of the window).  I now want it removed because every time I restore it back to its non-vandalised state, Diggly comes along and puts his slander/rubbish back in.  I don't want to have to check every day for vandalism - so I'd rather you just removed it; please, for the last time please.  Why do I get the feeling it is not being deleted purely for people to have a debate over nothing? Webbo2005 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles because they are vandalised. If we did that, all our politician pages would be gone for a starter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point but you can't compare a politician to a water buffalo. I think in cases such as Oink's there should be exceptions. Webbo2005 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on the politician! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ba-Boom, Tshhh! Webbo2005 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per WP:NOT animal known only for one newsworthy incident and with no long-term significance. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TimVickers, an animal BLP1E that fails NOT:NEWS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Until someone gets a book published about him, or he shows up on VH1's I love the 00s or something else to establish this as anything beyond a human interest story on a slow news day. -Verdatum (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a biography of a creature known primarily for one event. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if not for any other reason than to refute the complete absurdity of trying to apply BLP1E to an animal. This thing should be dealt with by process, and that should start with ANI regarding the vandal. If there was any reason to delete, it would be WP:NOTNEWS, but I fail to see how any harm can come to the subject as a result of the article. Jim Miller (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was applying NOTNEWS as a way of assessing notability and the long-term viability of this article as an encyclopedic subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my reference to BLP1E was made fairly tongue in cheek, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. There have been a fair number of cases in the news here of animal abuse (boiling water, microwave etc) and those obviously fail NOT:NEWS, and if they didn't then it would be the incident that is notable, not the animal.  In this case, the argument is being made that the animal *is* notable... and I disagree.  It is notable because of it's involvement in a case of animal abuse, and outside that case, there's no notability.  The essence of BLP1E seems to apply by analogy. Now, JimMillerJr, you're !voting "keep" to make a WP:POINT about the application of BLP1E to an animal, not because you think the animal is notable? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that does read more harshly than I meant it. Reiterate my keep as the article passes WP:V and WP:NOTE through significant coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. Jim Miller (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Carnildo (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This will not be remembered even one year from now, and is no different from the 100s of other human interest stories that clog up our news programmes. Steve  T • C 21:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have struck my vote after a re-read of the notability guideline; I thought I remembered a line in it that recommended against the inclusion of articles that only demonstrated notability for a short period. Obviously, the exact opposite is the case! However, this doesn't preclude a future !vote from me under another guideline. All the best, Steve  T • C 07:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, this does meet the general notability criterion. Second, it doesn't fail ONEEVENT for two reasons a/that applies only to people, and b/it isn't one event---the animal is notable both for his general mode of behavior and also for the abuse he has received. Third, it doesn't fail NOT NEWS for although isolated abuse may fall under that, the general for what co behavior of the animal is the sort that would be a matter of a feature story, not a newspaper story. Fourth, whether it will be remembered a year from now is not the test--the question is whether it is notable now. So that basically gets us down to IDONTLIKEIT.  Myself, I don't like it either, but it meets the rules. There are lot's of things I don't  like but meet the rules and are present in  Wikipedia, but I don't go around to make a POINT about the inadequacy of the rules by trying to remove them.   There's one more possibiliity then: IAR-- but IAR does not hold unless the need to do something to improve the encyclopedia is essentially obvious to all Wikipedia people here of good faith, and I don't think that's the case. So there we are. It's inevitable that something as complicated as our inclusion rules would lead to this sort of result, for all large organisations and projects have their  contradictions. We might as well get used to it.  DGG (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if a buffalo has made some unusual noises, I don't see this is a criteria for including the animal in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I don't count that as a second source of notability and see this a a single claim for notability. Imagine the mess we would have if every talking dog could have an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not about a water buffalo that makes strange noises - that is a minor detail about this particular buffalo. The article is about someone's pet who was subject to abuse and about the money that was raised as a result (and how to raise more money for the cause). I'm sorry but the article is interesting only because we are all people and we are all interested to some extent in these poor farmer and cute animal gets raw deal to thugs and is now consoled with other peoples' money trash stories. While this story belongs in a tabloid, it does not in Wikipedia. --Carbonrodney (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, can you elaborate upon the following statement?:"Third, it doesn't fail NOT NEWS for although isolated abuse may fall under that, the general for what co behavior of the animal is the sort that would be a matter of a feature story, not a newspaper story."I must admit, I simply don't understand what you mean ("the general for what co behavior of the animal"). Thanks, Steve  T • C 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yep, it does seem to have come out a little confused: I meant that the general behavior of the animal and the interest taken in that is one point of notability, aside from the subsequent animal abuse---it is meant to explain why this is different from ordinary accounts of abuse of an animal. DGG (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. As I will argue below, I don't think the coverage sufficiently gets past the "short burst of news reports" stage. Steve  T • C 06:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are sensations of lasting popularity, and there are 15 minutes of fame, quickly forgotten, and unworthy of any historical, to say nothing of encyclopedic, mention. This animal clearly falls into the latter. RayAYang (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NOT#NEWS, NPOV Sceptre (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. To quote: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." At the very least, it isn't notable yet, as coverage from significant sources has only been present between July 4 and July 12. This doesn't cross the threshold of being more than a "short burst" for me. All the best, Steve  T • C 06:27, 18 July 2008 (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.