Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whipper (The Budgie)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whipper (The Budgie)

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

Speedy deletion on the grounds of being "incoherent text or gibberish" was probably rightly contested because this warrants debate, but it appears to apply. The article appears to be a joke and even if some of it is based on reality, its reliability is severely in doubt. Is the article serious when it says that the bird is "soft" and "adorable"? Are we to believe that a budgie "tragically rejected" is a "pop star" that "enjoys" celebrity attention? In short, no matter whether the subject is notable or not the article is predominantly incoherent, orginal research and unverifiable. Delete - there's nothing to rescue here - and start again if needed. Ros0709 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This article is about a bird that received some media attention a few years ago for its unusual appearance. Google News Archives does find a few references, but mostly on pay sites (which is not a point against notability, but does make it more difficult to use those references for information). There was also a reference (in a list of one-sentence items) stating that the bird had died, which is not mentioned in this article. This might be worth revising into a proper article, although I am not sure of that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Though I hadn't heard of "Whipper", it looks like he was somewhat well known in New Zealand, Australia, and that area about five years ago . Maybe some of the editors Down Under know more about this animal, even if it wasn't in the news here in Up Over.  Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Maias (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   —Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple media stories suggest notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

--Hasbrook (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2008 (EST)
 * Verifiable Notability Whipper's story and public notability are both valid and verified. There are language barriers between the term "budgie" and the US English term "parakeet". Google is not part of Wikipedia nor is an internet search going to alway return "hits" of something historical. I am presently adding yet another valid reference article http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91059-13064712,00.html from the UK this article is a few years old and did not come up with Goggling. The mere mutation of this bird is historic, and the given articles only add to the fact of his fame (even if he has less publicity today).
 * Delete - since when were "oddspot" stories encyclopedic? dramatic (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it our place to make value judgements on why reliable sources like Sky News chose to cover a subject in an article? Notability does not have a "coverage we think is silly" out clause. Rare and unusual animals are often the subject of significant reliable coverage, just like rare and unusual people. Just because it could be seen as a light-hearted animal story doesn't make it less valid as evidence of notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:22, 9 December 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.