Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion the dog

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. Consensus is to delete WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onion the dog

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

Not notable. Someone's pet that is due to be destroyed for killing a child. Although newsworthy it seems to be mostly to be of local interest. The one 'international' link is to a UK tabloid, probably as it fits in with a campaign against dangerous dogs (quite the opposite of the "international focal point for animal welfare advocates" the article claims). Lots of POV issues but even if fixed it still won't be notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Onion the dog story should be compacted and inserted in the animal euthanasia page, or the animal rights page. Having a complete article for this dog is absurd. Rubyface (t), 9:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- comment It's already mentioned in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States: see Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan in the 2012 list. I had to check the sources for the name of the victim, it's not in the article at all – you would think the dog is the victim from the way this article is written. Most of the references seem not to work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notability clearly established according to WP:GNG by over 150 newspaper print and website articles, including Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and New York dailies, television and radio coverage in markets other than Nevada, articles on Huffington Post, and numerous Associated Press nationally-distributed articles.

MadZarkoff (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It is a badly written and heavily pov-laden article on a subject that has no longterm notability. The article probably exists only so that those with a vested interest in the ongoing local story can claim that a local issue is of greater importance than it is. Wikipedia is not a Facebook page, and articles should not exist as outlets for editors to express their indignation about such-and-such an incident. Meowy 16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfDs are WP:NOTCLEANUP (in fact, it's not even as bad as some of the articles on Wikipedia are). WP:NPOV here is fairly good, and presents both views of the incident without significant bias. And I don't know what the heck the second part is - it does have significant sources where the information has been sourced from. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, meets content policies. I have mostly addressed the POV issues by copying in a less-biased article from a project that uses the same license as we do. JYolkowski // talk 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with keep and cleanup As I wrote over at Citizendium keep the article. The article has been rewritten after the article was "borrowed" from Citizendium and moved to WP. The article now contains historical fact. It is no longer a "drive-by" article. BTW I was one of the authors who helped edit the current article at CZ and WP. I contribute to both. Quill and Pen (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is local news and nothing more. I could not find any New York Times articles about this dog. MadZarkoff: can you find them and add them to the article? Bearian (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - meets WP:GNG, but does not adequately meed WP:NPOV. Content also needs cleanup and needs to be wikified. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many non-local citations, but one of the editors deleted them all. I added a couple I just found quickly. There was also a Denver Post article, t.v. coverage from West Palm Beach to Texas to Seattle, from Los Angeles, etc. etc. Just google. They're all over. Huffington Post, Associated Press. etc. MadZarkoff (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Bearian and the Delete-judging administrator. Bearian asked for additional non-local citations to show this is national coverage so I obliged. Then another editor deleted those citations. I just put them back in -- the first time in my editing life I ever reverted another's edit, and I did not feel comfortable doing it. Bearian, I did what you asked. I cannot control other editors. MadZarkoff (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal and moral ramifications

The following comments were posted to the Onion article discussion page. I placing them here for review. I have found sources both nationally and internationally. Also, this case has been sent to the Nevada Supreme Court for review. Comments from discussion page: That's OK. There has been national and international coverage. I have found sources using the Associated Press (that's national) and at least one source covering this story in Britain. The story has the makings of a philosophical and ethical debate as the role of pet ownership is evolving. It used to be if you had a vicious dog you put the dog down. Now we have "pet parents" and a whole different way of looking at animals. Another way to look at this too, is the reported recanting by the dog owner who reportedly signed over ownership to the Henderson animal control officials. She now claims "duress" and wants to have the dog sent to a no-kill animal shelter. So there are some legal aspects of this case too. Quill and Pen (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Quill and Pen (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per WP:EFFECT.~~ Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENT. The sources don't appear to address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:GNG. Eskew-Shahan's death is already listed in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Is any precedent being set? Even if so, a more appropriate title would be Killing of Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan. -- Trevj (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can be established in various ways. WP:EFFECT stands for the proposition that otherwise apparently non-notable events are notable if they have long-lasting effects. It does not stand for the logically-nonequivalent inverse, that events are not notable if they do not have a lasting effect, as Trevj by referring to it seems to imply. Notability here has been established by extensive media coverage as per WP:GNG.

WP:EFFECT also states: “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.” Judgment at this point on this basis is clearly premature, the result of the court proceedings having not been concluded.

I believe that the comment that the references do not address the subject of the article is incorrect. They concern the ongoing legal battle to save the dog’s life.

Editor Trevj also comments that the article “already” appears on the list of dog-related deaths. That seems to imply that other articles are not needed because they appear on a list. Where do you draw the line? I reaffirm my KEEP vote on the basis of notability. MadZarkoff (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw the line where the death received far more attention than this. Where e.g. there was a notable criminal case or where the law was changed as a result (but there the article would probably be on the case or the law instead). A dog killing someone is not notable. The local court cases since then don't make it notable. I.e. it is very much a local news story without national or international implications.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my confusing note above. I've amended it. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. This tragedy is well documented, but sources provided don't seem adequate to support an independent article. This article isn't even about the dog; it's about the tragic incident. As an event, sourcing on this fails EFFECT, GEOSCOPE, INDEPTH, PERSISTENCE, and DIVERSE. Lots of speculation and conjecture. Ten years from now the dog and the story will be dead. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BLP1E is instructive here. If this were a living person who had angrily lashed out and killed a child, normally we'd be obliged to delete per BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Because this is a living animal we seem okay with ignoring those policies. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sheesh. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen and ladies --

WP.GNG -- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. COMMENT. Satisfied by the article. WP.NTEMP -- Notability is not temporary - once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. COMMENT. Thus, what occurs 10 years from now is not relevant. Editor commentary on the subject matter also does not bear on these criteria. Thanks. MadZarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Outside of the single tragedy, the dog isn't notable by any standard of policy or guideline. What might be notable is the event and the effect thereafter. The WP:10 year test is part of the essay on Recentism, which points out that editors sometimes overfocus on events which happened recently. Because news coverage often exists on non-notable topics, imagining whether the subject would be considered notable enough for inclusion ten years in the future is sometimes a useful exercise. As User:MadZarkoff points out, notability isn't temporary, I and others often wonder whether recent news counts as significant enough coverage to meet the standards for WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. In this case, in my view, coverage is not significant and the topic fails several event criteria. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my comments as I did not realize this constitutes a vote. I am new here, and am learning the process, so I appreciate your patience. Thank you! Quill and Pen (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QandP as a new editor didn't know that one can COMMENT without VOTING. His comments were valuable and I accordingly take the liberty of repeating them here under my own name. I hope this doesn't violate any WP standards. Reverse vandalism perhaps??

QandP wrote, The article is about the proposed euthanasia of a dog that mauled and killed a child. If the dog is allowed live, this would set legal precedent as most US municipal codes euthanize dogs that are declared vicious. The article also has legal merit as the case is under review, or has been reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court. As to new coverage, this incident has received both national and international coverage. Also, the article could reflect a societal change in how US citizens view pet ownership. We now have "pet parents" and there are some who have started to treat their pets as children and may expect to have the same rights conferred onto their animals as humans. While this article may not be complete, it is because the event is ongoing and has not ended. I highly recommend keeping this article based on its legal merits, wide news coverage and the potential reflection of societal change. MadZarkoff (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think this dog meets the notability guideline. Certainly the case is well covered but for a singe incident which, as far as I can tell, doesn't confer notability. There is a marginal case for an inclusion in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States if it is not already mentioned there. --Lw (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote earlier the article should be kept. FYI I am a retired journalist who is well versed in covering governmental affairs. I read the City of Henderson Municipal Code and it seems to be inline with most other city codes when it comes to dealing with declared vicious dogs. Onion may very well end up being a test case on several fronts: 1) If the State of Nevada Supreme Court, or a lower Nevada court, determines that Onion should not be euthanized for whatever reason legal precedent could be set. Cities throughout the US will have rewrite their municipal codes when it comes to handling declared vicious dogs. 2) The other precedent is the owner "recanting" under duress. This is a legal issue but a very important one. What happens if other dog owners decide the same thing? How will local governments determine how to handle dog owners who have second thoughts? There is also the issue of assigning new status or legal rights as some dog owners now consider their pets their "children" and this case could be a test case to determine if pets deserve the same legal status, or at least the status to petition the court on a routine basis, to not have a vicious dog euthanized.

I’m sorry if I voted twice. I didn’t think I did. Plus, I’m sure the WP administrator making the decision on this article would have noted that. But I don’t think my inadvertent error, performed in good faith, justifies the striking of my comments. I hope this resolves this disagreement amicably, and I again apologize if I made an error. Quill and Pen (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Note: The article has been moved to Onion (dog) as the name of the animal is simply Onion. With no links to the redirect page other than those pertaining to this AfD I'd recommend the redirect be deleted upon closer of the AfD (in case of deletion, under WP:G8, otherwise WP:G6). JIMp_talk·cont 03:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Per WP:AFDEQ, I thought page moves were often left until discussions are closed. -- Trevj (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll keep that in mind. JIMp_talk·cont 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a huge problem, just an observation. -- Trevj (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable animal. The fact of extensive media coverage is not sufficient to make a current news event notable; some indication of lasting value or interest is needed. Also, though the attack might become notable, the dog will not. Delete for now but revisit if, for example, the event sets an important legal precedent when an article on the attack (but not the dog) might be justified. TerriersFan (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. TF wrote-The fact of extensive media coverage is not sufficient to make a current news event notable--YES it is. Please read WP:GNG. TF wrote-Some indication of lasting value or interest is needed.--NO, it's not. Please see WP:NTEMP. The event has already set an important legal precedent in being heard by a state Supreme Court.MadZarkoff (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - read WP:NTEMP - "Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." I believe that to be the case here. There also seems to be ongoing coverage based on the publishing dates of the sources anyway. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.