Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Things Zoofari

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. Daniel (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Things Zoofari[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nomination following an IP editor's impassioned request at the Wikipedia Help Desk. I am neutral unless and until I express an opinion in the discussion below. That IP editor has also blanked some or all of this article often today.

Their rationale is stated thus: "Hello Wikipedia. I am requesting for the speedy and immediate deletion of this page as it contains fake information which can lead to fraud and also there are many scenarios of article infringement. Kindly review and delete this page as it is urgent."

I have run Earwig's copyvio detector and it finds a low probability of copyright infringement. The article has some issues, but those are normal Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see evidence of notability. The sources (where they are accessible and mention the subject) are in local newspapers and probably based on press releases. The first and longest paragraph is not about the subject. The language is promotional. The subject is a travelling petting zoo - hardly likely to be notable. (The IP's "urgent request" is irrelevant.) Maproom (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maproom, Their request only has relevance insofar as it created the discussion. I am not at all concerned about their urgency, nor their passion, I copied and pasted their text verbatim. Consensus will prevail. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale.Nightwolf1223 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that sloth is so adorable. Also, partial point towards WP:GNG. Not enough, but it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails the "significant coverage" section of WP:CORP. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I found bunch of other articles in Google News that mentions them, there is nothing in-depth. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage besides visits to libraries with a small petting zoo. This company operates petting zoos in several Texas cities, but none have gotten any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Besides that I do not see any RS's that are not promotional available. Probably not suitable for Wikipedia. LOMRJYO_(About)^(contribs) 00:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 2 March 2021 (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.