Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 puma sightings in Santiago (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 03:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 puma sightings in Santiago[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)

Renominated as soft deletion was contested. Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS (no. 2). Event did not have lasting effects. Could be merged, partly, into the covid pandemic article in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No lasting significance. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS beacause; 1) it is not original reporting, 2) the event was indeed rare and notable enough to be covered by numerous sources, 3) "Who is who" does not aply 4) It was never gossip. The nomination seems to me a misuse of the shortcut WP:NOTNEWS. There is plenty of article about events without much obvious lasting significance such as the 1949 Tierra del Fuego earthquakes or the 2022 Tierra del Fuego wildfire, or let's say any random animal or plant species. The fact that such a rare thing occurred makes it notable, and reliable media in Chile and Spain rightfully recognised this. Sietecolores (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I don't believe it warrants its own article, there is no reason you cannot add this content to an appropriate article. If no other target exists, South American cougar could use more information about the range of the animal, which could include appropriate discussions re its presence in Santiago in 2020. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of TRIVIA and Not the NEWS; as these events are an everyday, non-notable occurrence (animals are in towns all the time: bears in Duluth; bobcats in Topeka, and pumas in Santiago, etc.). 22:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenQuest (talk • contribs)

GenQuest, please read the article again. These are not events that occur every day. That is why reputable sources like Reuters (x2), La Tercera, La Vanguardia, and Radio Cooperativa decided to cover the topic, and why there is an article on the subject on Current Biology. Sietecolores (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Biology paper only mentions the Santiago sightings but in fact refers to sightings in California. The other sources are just routine coverage. Bedivere (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Bedivere, you got it wrong. There is no "routine coverage" of pumas walking into Santiago. Where did you get that idea from? The different battles of the war in Ukraine are more likely more of a "routine coverage". Sietecolores (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the Russian invasion of Ukraine have enduring notability, for sure. Puma sightings in Santiago, although uncommon, do not merit a standalone article. Maybe, if enough sources are found (that Current Biology paper could be a great point of start) the article scope could be broadened to wild animal sightings in different parts in the world as a result of the pandemic. I would not be opposed to such an outcome. Bedivere (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per user above. More akin to trivia or news and we don't need every big cat sighting getting its own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just trivia. Could be mentioned in a larger article about effects of the the corona lockdown on the wildlife around the world, but on its own it's just not relevant enough. Tercer (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already Soft Deleted so not eligible again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am particularly fond of the notion that the article has no lasting effects. SWinxy (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2022 (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.