Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide chicken


 * 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. Somebody can recreate it as a redirect if they want. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Suicide chicken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please let's read WP:NOTNEWS to see if it says we shouldn't include new referents:
 * "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
 * Therefore, we should include new referents.
 * "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:"
 * We should check each of these to see if they apply.
 * "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style."
 * This does not apply because it's not first-hand news or acting as a primary source.
 * "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."
 * The other articles in this category, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal-borne_bombs demonstrate the enduring notability of such referents. This is not "routine news reporting" or anything like an announcement, sports, or celebrities.
 * "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
 * Clearly does not apply.
 * "A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."
 * Clearly does not apply.
 * Please understand the reasons behind the WP:NOTNEWS guideline and do not believe that it means that Wikipedia has to wait until something is old to include it in the encyclopedia. Chrisrus (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite showing impressive cut-and-paste skills, I don't believe Chrisrus's answer properly "considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Just because some animal-borne bombs are notable doesn't mean they all are. I read about some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat; it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. At most this deserves a mention in one of the myriad other relevant articles on the specific conflict or the subject of animal bombs. But there's no indication it's beyond a simple "gee something strange has happened somewhere just now!" news report, published one day and forgotten the next - if it wasn't for the link to ISIS/ISIL/Daesh it would be a perfect example of the silly season. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, please explain what you meant by my "cut-and-paste" skills. How was I supposed to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this case without quoting directly from the guideline?  I didn't just quote it, I also pointed out how each item does not apply so I did more than simply cut-and-paste.  Your argument also contains a quotation seemingly cut and pasted.  Quoting a relevant rule or guideline is what you are supposed to do in such contexts, so please strike-through that portion of your argument as irrelevant.
 * The analogy is not relevant. Animal-borne bomb refers to those with a military purpose, all of which have their own articles on Wikipedia even if they are never used in war, as long as they can be reliably sourced.  The fact that you personally know of some kids who strapped a firecracker to a cat is not relevant.
 * Finally, yes, it does seem a silly thing at first, but ISIS is not silly, no bomb that works is silly, no sign that ISIS is insane, desperate, or out of ways to deliver their bombs is silly. This is not as silly or frivolous as it may seem so it's wrong to delete this article on the grounds that it's silly. Chrisrus (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dolphin bombs don't have a separate article; they're a sentence in Animal-borne bomb attacks (Military dolphin is largely about their use in mine detection). This deserves similar treatment. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And I don't consider quoting a large chunk of guideline and then appending "Clearly does not apply" really contributes to anything. Clearly the original deletion proposal was rather terse, but the relevant section of the guidelines should be obvious. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliability of sources is also a factor. The Daily Mail is included in Potentially unreliable sources, and I've no idea about the bona fides of the other sources: one Jordanian, one Afghan, neither with first-hand evidence. None of the source articles seem to be very certain that the suicide chickens even exist. While you insist this is serious business, they're more interested in making puns than establishing the facts. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Colapninsula, military dolphins which plant mines are in this category, but some clear them and do other things. That's not the situation with chickens.
 * It was showing that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This objection is not relevant.
 * I found many sources for this, but thought these three would be enough. I will add more from different countries.  Let me know when you're been convinced so I can stop. Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Animal-borne bomb attacks. Believe it or not, there has been a aurprising amount of such instances (usually donkeys).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see the qualifier even the DM put on the story: "although their authenticity could not be verified" - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per . Note that the title is misleading – there's no suggestion that such chickens are intentionally killing themselves for the cause. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The DM has an even more unreliable source for its article, The Daily Star. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per E.M. Gregory, seems a potentially valid search term but not worthy of an article itself per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. What information about the subject that is available in WP:RS could be included elsewhere (such as Animal-borne bomb attacks as suggested above). Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, you gotta love the idea of a suicide chicken. But, seriously, folks, it may be absurd to strap ammo to a bucket of KFC, but you gotta admit that as a bunch of geniuses are strapping bombs to chickens and mules and whatnot you have to keep that page.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It has to actually be a thing before it gets even a redirect. The Daily Mail doesn't care if this is real or not. It's great copy. The other two sources in the article are derivative of the Daily Mail piece (of ...). I would be shocked if there was an independent RS that corroborates this story. It clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which even redirects need to adhere to. Not that I don't appreciate the humor: "Once the chickens are successfully within striking distance without having aroused suspicion" Come on! A couple of big white things and a remote control strapped to a chicken wouldn't arouse suspicion? And I love the qualifier at the end of the first sentence, the passive "it has been claimed." Solid sourcing there!, I hope you are just objecting for giggles. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reason for a redirect, with about 100 monthly views (probably consequential to the Daily coverage). If you're worried about the representation of chickens in Animal-borne bomb attacks please add one sentence to that article and use The Mail's reference. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" and I've considered it. Tabloids, apparently the Daily Star in this case, publish weird stuff like this all the time and other sources with nothing else to fill space re-report it. We would only be slightly more or less accurate if we accepted Weekly World News as a source. - Location (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (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.