Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:38, 12 January 2011

2010–2011 midwinter animal mass death events

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:OR (by being an example of original synthesis), WP:RS (by relying substantially on blogs and other unreliable sources, though there are a few better sources present) and especially WP:NOTNEWS (by focusing on may passing mentions in news reports on an event that nobody will remember in a year's time. These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article. The existing articles Fish kill and Bird kill are more than enough coverage for Wikipedia's purposes. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - seems to be sensationalizing the events, which haven't been shown to be more than on the high side of normal events. the article attempts to string unrelated events into something "bigger" than what it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References to blogs should be removed to comply with WP:RS, but there do seem to be a more-than-sufficient number of reliable sources that refer to the die-offs as instances of a single, larger event. The separate events have been synthesized in primary sources; I don't think the article violates WP:OR, but even if it does in its current form, it could be rewritten not to. I can see that it might run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, although I do not think most of the sources cited count as "routine news reporting". YardsGreen (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article." This sounds like a good reason to keep the article and improve it. If no one is talking about this in a year, then it can be deleted, but when the WWF Italy president is saying that something like this has never happened before, and the reality is that these deaths are "not exceptional or surprising", it's quite important for someone to lay out the facts. I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not Wikipedia is capable of producing a good article on a controversial subject like this one (especially one where environmentalists are involved), but for the sake of AfD I think we have to assume it is. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *'''delete''' - seems to be sensationalizing the events, which haven't been shown to be more than on the high side of normal events.  the article attempts to string unrelated events into something "bigger" than what it is.  [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown|talk]]) 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' References to blogs should be removed to comply with [[WP:RS]], but there do seem to be a more-than-sufficient number of reliable sources that refer to the die-offs as instances of a single, larger event. The separate events have been synthesized in primary sources; I don't think the article violates [[WP:OR]], but even if it does in its current form, it could be rewritten not to. I can see that it might run afoul of [[WP:NOTNEWS]], although I do not think most of the sources cited count as "routine news reporting". [[User:YardsGreen|YardsGreen]] ([[User talk:YardsGreen|talk]]) 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
-*"These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article."  This sounds like a good reason to '''keep''' the article and improve it.  If no one is talking about this in a year, then it can be deleted, but when the WWF Italy president is saying that something like this has never happened before, and the reality is that these deaths are "not exceptional or surprising", it's quite important for someone to lay out the facts.  I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not Wikipedia is capable of this, but for the sake of AfD I think we have to assume it is. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
+*"These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article."  This sounds like a good reason to '''keep''' the article and improve it.  If no one is talking about this in a year, then it can be deleted, but when the WWF Italy president is saying that something like this has never happened before, and the reality is that these deaths are "not exceptional or surprising", it's quite important for someone to lay out the facts.  I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not Wikipedia is capable of producing a good article on a controversial subject like this one (especially one where environmentalists are involved), but for the sake of AfD I think we have to assume it is. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)