Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009[edit]
- Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article about an incident in which a kangaroo blundered into a house clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not at all rare for kangaroos to hop into gardens of Australian houses near the bush and from time to time they enter houses; big deal. When kangaroos feel threatened they sometimes lash out at whatever's near them, so calling this an 'attack' is ludicrous. The claim that the incident had wider significance ("and the attack was used partly to justify the culling of 4,000 kangaroos in the Canberra area in May 2009") is not supported by the reference given, which simply mentions it alongside another incident relating to kangaroos in Canberra during 2009. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's claim that the incident lead to calls for a cull of kangaroos in the Canberra area is also not supported by the sources, which state that the reason given for the cull was over population and merely mention this incident alongside this; none of them draw any clear link between the incident and the cull. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. This "attack" was addressed at the AFD for Kangaroo attacks in Australia.[1] It's a single news item and there is no justification for an entire article about it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ACT government released a kangaroo management plan with community comment open between 17 March 2009 and 11 May 2009. The comments they received would have been likely to have been affected by this widely reported kangaroo attack on 8 March leading to the cull which began in May. James4750 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I live in Canberra and have never heard of this. It's plainly not notable, and doesn't justify an article per WP:NOTNEWS.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is really silly. An animal blunders into someone's house. This is not notable (on WP) or even an "attack." Northwestgnome (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - actually would be quite at home at Wikinews but not here. Orderinchaos 11:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per other delete arguments above - the reverse is probably more of an issue - motor vehicles attack kangaroos daily - SatuSuro 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unnotable random news item; fails WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I love the play-by-play description ("Initial warning"; "Point of entry", "Move into son's bedroom", etc.), although it underscores how trivial this incident really was. Was there kangaroo hair that had to be vaccuumed off the floor? Any really gross stains? Mandsford (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kanga-poo? Orderinchaos 09:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS, While the event may have made it to the international news outlets (on a slow news day/week) it was only a one off and not notable. Just shows what happens when a Kangaroo gets out on the wrong side of the bed in the morning (*Sarcasm*)! ;) Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nomination. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this article was filler in a slow news day. There is no real substance that could merit an article here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've said it a million times: you can't judge a subject by your view of its inherent triviality. "Just a kangaroo hopping around" isn't much of an argument. The plentiful press sources demonstrate that many people attached importance to the subject, and it's the assessment of the outside world that matters, not the assessment of Wikipedians. We should only be here to judge whether or not the outside world has assigned notability to a subject, and in this case there's no question that it has. Everyking (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A large number of the news articles treat the incident in a trivial way with silly titles, such as Int-roo-der's really jumpy". Most have taken time to include the rather comical quote, "it's a lunatic ninja coming through the window". At least one included "ninja" in the article's title.[2] Clearly it was treated as a trivial, filler article rather than something of importance. The articles are generally reprints of the AP article, with the occasional copyedit so the local editor's name could be used. The fact is that such incidents occur so often that they are trivial, as trivial as the average dog bite or cat scratch. And, of course, the article still fails WP:NOT#NEWS whichever way you look at it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On this radio interview they said they heard from CNN Atlanta, and reporters from Miami, Chicago, France, the United Kingdom and her husband had been interviewed by Swiss radio. How often does that happen with the average dog/cat attack? Another good interview is here by the way.James4750 (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kangaroos are more unusual outside Australia than cats and dogs and, being a very well known national icon, are likely to draw more attention. That, in no way, means that the incident is any less trivial or more important than the average dog bite or cat scratch. In fact, because of the very high 'roo population in close proximity to humans in the ACT, it's surprising that there aren't more such incidents. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're trying to rationalize and explain away why it received attention—but it doesn't matter why it received attention. What matters is that it received attention, even if it's silly, trivial, and didn't deserve it. Everyking (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your justification for keeping the article is that people assigned a level of importance to it. My point is that it wasn't importance, it was treated as trivial. You're ignoring the fact that it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's most certainly not historically notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make a difference if the papers had reported the story in a consistently grave and serious tone? It wouldn't get press coverage if it wasn't deemed important—press coverage costs time and money. There's really no other way to objectively evaluate these things. Say there are three kangaroo incidents, and all receive identical levels of press coverage: in one of them, the kangaroo knocks over a lamp and breaks it; in another one, the kangaroo injures someone; and in the last one, the kangaroo kills someone. Are we going to say that there's an ascending level of notability, that notability is measured in the number of human lives lost or blood spilt? I think that's silly. Instead of trying to enforce some nebulous concept of what should be notable based on inherent attributes of the subject, let's just reflect what the world at large deems notable. We can do that in a very simple and consistent way by reviewing published sources. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tone is irrelevant, this article fails WP:NOT#NEWS regardless. I'm afraid you're wrong about unimportant things not getting press coverage. They get coverage all of the time. Have you ever looked through a "Letters to the editor" section? What gets coverage is items that encourage people to buy newspapers, regardless of their importance, and "Letters to the editor", where average people can see their name in print, and cutesy stories about ninja kangaroos, or the old lady who thinks her next door neighbours have set up a robot frog to keep her awake all night encourage people to buy newspapers. The frog saga has been going on since ~2003 and has been on numerous current affair and news TV programs, on the radio and in the newspapers in Australia and overseas so many times I've lost count but we don't have an article because, like the ninja kangaroo incident, it's not historically notable, even though it has had a lot more coverage than the ninja kangaroo has. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good test of whether WP:NOT#NEWS applies is if the event attracted any attention a few days or weeks after it occurred or led to any significant changes. Neither was the case here; there was a lot of media coverage for a couple of days, and then nothing. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A week later, April 2009, September 2009... Everyking (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how brief mentions of this incident in stories on similar incidents which add nothing new constitute any kind of meaningful or ongoing coverage - eg, there's no follow up to this incident. Nick-D (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In those sources, we can see that this incident was referenced when other things related to kangaroos happened—in the first case, a kangaroo cull; in the latter two, other kangaroo attacks. The incident was deemed memorable and significant enough to be used as a reference point with regard to human–kangaroo interaction for at least a few months afterward. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how brief mentions of this incident in stories on similar incidents which add nothing new constitute any kind of meaningful or ongoing coverage - eg, there's no follow up to this incident. Nick-D (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A week later, April 2009, September 2009... Everyking (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good test of whether WP:NOT#NEWS applies is if the event attracted any attention a few days or weeks after it occurred or led to any significant changes. Neither was the case here; there was a lot of media coverage for a couple of days, and then nothing. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tone is irrelevant, this article fails WP:NOT#NEWS regardless. I'm afraid you're wrong about unimportant things not getting press coverage. They get coverage all of the time. Have you ever looked through a "Letters to the editor" section? What gets coverage is items that encourage people to buy newspapers, regardless of their importance, and "Letters to the editor", where average people can see their name in print, and cutesy stories about ninja kangaroos, or the old lady who thinks her next door neighbours have set up a robot frog to keep her awake all night encourage people to buy newspapers. The frog saga has been going on since ~2003 and has been on numerous current affair and news TV programs, on the radio and in the newspapers in Australia and overseas so many times I've lost count but we don't have an article because, like the ninja kangaroo incident, it's not historically notable, even though it has had a lot more coverage than the ninja kangaroo has. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make a difference if the papers had reported the story in a consistently grave and serious tone? It wouldn't get press coverage if it wasn't deemed important—press coverage costs time and money. There's really no other way to objectively evaluate these things. Say there are three kangaroo incidents, and all receive identical levels of press coverage: in one of them, the kangaroo knocks over a lamp and breaks it; in another one, the kangaroo injures someone; and in the last one, the kangaroo kills someone. Are we going to say that there's an ascending level of notability, that notability is measured in the number of human lives lost or blood spilt? I think that's silly. Instead of trying to enforce some nebulous concept of what should be notable based on inherent attributes of the subject, let's just reflect what the world at large deems notable. We can do that in a very simple and consistent way by reviewing published sources. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your justification for keeping the article is that people assigned a level of importance to it. My point is that it wasn't importance, it was treated as trivial. You're ignoring the fact that it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's most certainly not historically notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're trying to rationalize and explain away why it received attention—but it doesn't matter why it received attention. What matters is that it received attention, even if it's silly, trivial, and didn't deserve it. Everyking (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kangaroos are more unusual outside Australia than cats and dogs and, being a very well known national icon, are likely to draw more attention. That, in no way, means that the incident is any less trivial or more important than the average dog bite or cat scratch. In fact, because of the very high 'roo population in close proximity to humans in the ACT, it's surprising that there aren't more such incidents. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On this radio interview they said they heard from CNN Atlanta, and reporters from Miami, Chicago, France, the United Kingdom and her husband had been interviewed by Swiss radio. How often does that happen with the average dog/cat attack? Another good interview is here by the way.James4750 (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A large number of the news articles treat the incident in a trivial way with silly titles, such as Int-roo-der's really jumpy". Most have taken time to include the rather comical quote, "it's a lunatic ninja coming through the window". At least one included "ninja" in the article's title.[2] Clearly it was treated as a trivial, filler article rather than something of importance. The articles are generally reprints of the AP article, with the occasional copyedit so the local editor's name could be used. The fact is that such incidents occur so often that they are trivial, as trivial as the average dog bite or cat scratch. And, of course, the article still fails WP:NOT#NEWS whichever way you look at it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely non-notable. No impact on history whatsoever etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean to have an "impact on history"? Can that be defined in some kind of meaningful way that wouldn't require the deletion of most of Wikipedia's existing content? Because when I think of "impact on history", I think of subjects like Newton and Marx—certainly not subjects like the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (let alone its litany of subarticles—not to say I don't think they're all excellent!). Everyking (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is what NOT NEWS is properly for, not things that are moderately likely to be historical.
- Delete - Not news, not historical, etc. Everyone above has covered it well. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not news, I don't feel that stuff that appears in the "weird world" column really qualifies as a reliable source. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:58, 17 December 2009 (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.