Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Xanda the lion

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 Redirect as inevitably obvious result, merging is of course still available in history, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Xanda the lion[edit]

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

No indication of notability Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - The story is being covered in every major newspaper around the world from the BBC, Washington Post, Guardian etc.. because of Xanada's connection to the Killing of Cecil the lion. If Xanda was not the offspring of Cecil, there would be no story. It's purely inheritance. Xanda is not independently notable. Xanda was killed legally with no controversy (that we know if so far). Thus merge into the Cecil article (already there). -- GreenC 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Xanda's story is linked to that of his father Cecil, not only in the sources that I saw, but in the article about Cecil. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cecil's article, history intact, without prejudice to recreation. There's nothing to merge. The story was covered by major news outlets but whatever story there is has not been developed or made it into the article. If it ever becomes too large for Cecil's article, which it probably won't, then split it out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 21 July 2017 (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.