Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky (dolphin)

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 no consensus. Am closing this as no consensus as there is significant disagreement over whether this fails W:NOT#NEWS or not and the debate has already been relisted once. However I strong recommend considering the merge or just redirect option suggested by SmokeyJoe if nothing further can be written on the topic than what is already there - that is a normal editing decision however. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky (dolphin)[edit]

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

The article is about a pink dolphin in a Louisiana waterway. It seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would encourage people to take a closer look at this subject before deciding to support deletion. While an article about a dolphin in the United States doesn't sound like it would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at first, the subject of this article isn't your average dolphin. This dolphin has been the subject of significant coverage in at least two reliable secondary sources: The Daily Telegraph and News.com.au. Reading these articles, I've gleaned two things establishing the subject as highly unusual: (1) the animal is believed to be the only pink dolphin in the world and (2) the dolphin has become a tourist attraction. I think these two things help establish the subject as one of the select few dolphins notable enough for their own articles, together with the fact that the subject meets the general notability guideline, as explained above. As for the WP:NOTNEWS argument presented by Jujutacular, I firmly disagree. WP:NOTNEWS states: "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." I fail to see how this subject is disqualified from inclusion by that policy in any way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not exist to promote tourism. Edison (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edison, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mention tourism once. In fact, WP:NOT does not mention tourism at all except at WP:NOTTRAVEL, which certainly doesn't apply here. I have to ask you: In what way does this violate WP:NOTNEWS? I personally don't believe it does. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not state that WP:NOTNEWS mentions tourism. I said this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Note that it is a "news story." One news story, picked up by a second paper the next day. Also, and as an independent observation, Wikipedia does not exist to promote tourism. This falls under "not indiscriminate information," "not a travel guide," and "not a directory" (of animals who are "tourist attractions" or who have been covered by a news story). Edison (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, but also I don't really think that the two articles add up to "significant coverage" - really all they have to say is that a pink dolphin lives in a lake in Louisiana. The fact that the dolphin exists doesn't mean Pinky's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcasieu Lake, where the content already exists. Insufficient material for a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. International press coverage! Everyking (talk) 08:12, 10 November 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.