Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninio

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 to List of historical elephants. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninio[edit]

This is based upon the "gay elephant" story. After the story fades, it's doubtful that the animal itself can stand as notable Mblumber (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that WP:BIO1E applies for elephants as well as humans. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ninio the elephant has been widely reported around the world. Strictly speaking he should be set free, but while in captivity he is definitely notable. See these links [1][2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damson88 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Damson88's reasoning and per nom.--Unionhawk ^Talk 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to be notable enough. The article could be better. I'm not sure if it is scientifically correct to use the word "gay" in reference to an elephant. Borock (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bio 1E refers to people. If elephants eventually start to read Wikipedia, then they'd count. ditto for robots and space aliens. DGG (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come to that conclusion? It seems the guideline tried to be all-inclusive and just chose some bad wording: "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." In my book the word "individual" can apply to any living creature that is either antropomorpasized (sp?) or has limbs to stand on. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The elephant didn't try to have sex with another male elephant. Enjoying the company of same-sex friends is not gay and neither is non-willingness to mate. (Breeding programs have that problem more often) I'd say the whole controversy is pure speculation since there's no scientific evidence the accusation is actually true. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The head of the Poznan zoo said: "10-year-old Ninio may be too young to decide whether he prefers males or females as elephants only reach sexual maturity at 14." This is the nail in the coffin. Zoo heads are more knowledgeable about elephant sexuality than a conservative politician. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly I'd say that the controversy isn't a matter of speculation. There is debate about Ninio instigated by a right-wing Polish politician. The existence of so-called 'gay animals' causes consternation, particularly amongst some religious groups. For example a book about 'gay' penguins Roy and Silo tops the list of complaints [4] to the American Library Association (ALA). So whether Ninio is actually gay/homosexual is as much of an issue as the hostility directed towards the recognition of animals of 'his nature'. Damson88 (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of historical elephants. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 19 April 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.