Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula

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 merge to Coromandel Peninsula. Consensus is merge and redirect to the place; that's its listed in fish Kills seems good, but shouldn't be the main place for these. As a separate article, it isn't notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass death of snapper near the Coromandel Peninsula

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

Fails notability. This is a trivial news event of no lasting importance, and was probably inspired by the telephone game currently making its way around the Internet claiming that various mass animal deaths are "spooky". Even a year from now, nobody will care about this event, so an encyclopedia article is not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. If this were to, by some chance, become notable later simply undelete it. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Keep~~ until toxicology report is issued so we can determine the long term impact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula under a new section 'Ecology'(?). It seems like a sensible outcome to me. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - no more than a news report at present - with no evidence of sustained coverage or impact. If there is a long term impact which is reported by reliable sources (following the release of a toxicology report or otherwise) then maybe an article will be warranted. To kept the article based on what might happen would be speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Redirect, although I think it's an unlikely search target there's no harm in keeping the history. Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coromandel Peninsula or relevant articles. If the toxicology reports become notable, then the article may be recreated. I originally create the article because I could not find its contents covered elsewhere here.Smallman12q (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, if there's a consensus here to merge the material into the location article, I don't have any problem with that. I do have an issue with a separate article on the event. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the information to the list of fish kills. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2011 (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.