Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweet (giraffe)

: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. Feel free to redirect if desired. ‑Scottywong User talk:Scottywong 16:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Tweet (giraffe)]]=

:{{la|Tweet (giraffe)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tweet_(giraffe) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Tweet (giraffe)}})

Article (almost) meets WP:ONEEVENT. All coverage about this animal is related to a single event, his death - absolutely no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found that is unrelated to that one event. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Delete Non-notable flash in the pan.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Delete Not encyclopedaic subject. Loopy30 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Delete Insufficient independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Morphdog (t - c) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

:Keep. I'm skeptical about using the WP:ONEEVENT standard because it's a subsection of a page called "Notability (people)" and Tweet was not a person. Further, it seems like it's being applied to the fact that this (admittedly terrible) article only dwells on one event, not whether or not the subject is genuinely not known for anything else. One listed exception is "Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." On its own, Tweet's tragic end doesn't confer notability. But [http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/09/15/agir.html he was also a cast member of a movie that made over $100 million and starred in multiple Toys "R" Us commercials]. Those two additional facts gained Tweet international attention and if this article were kept, they'd obviously be added. So this is a weird situation because the article fails ONEEVENT but its subject doesn't. City Of Silver 00:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production where the reliably sourced information about this giraffe already appears. Clearly not one event, because the giraffe appeared in a film and was a business mascot, but the sources in the article and through a Google search don't make it pass the WP:GNG. There is enough to justify it's inclusion in the movie page though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Zookeeper_(film)#Production - it's not like he predicted the world cup. Cabayi (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Plantdrew (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2017 (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.