Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Churchill's pets

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill's pets[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)

Winston Churchill's pets are notable ?

Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Animal, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was able to find an academic book covering Churchill's animals (Churchill's Menagerie: Winston Churchill and the Animal Kingdom), as well as a couple of popular history books which may or may not be reliable ([1][2], as well as the Selbert one cited in the article). I did not thoroughly search news articles, but a perfunctory look seems like there might be some more coverage there. Churchill's animals are covered at Winston Churchill#Artist, historian, and writer, so a merge or redirect there should also be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; sources in the article plus those listed above. This is so much better than giving each notable/marginally notable pet its own individual Wikipedia article (as many heads-of-state pets have). As a group they are definitely notable and it's great to read about them all in one place. As a history article, your best bet for WP:BEFORE is library books. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His pets don't have stand-alone notability. There's of course going to be at least some coverage of things like this for such a significant historical figure, but almost always this should be contained within the main article. Pointing towards pages like Pets of Vladimir Putin isn't a legitimate argument in favour of keeping this article. Willbb234 11:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Willbb234. This is essentially a case of Churchill's notability spilling onto his pets, who have no notability of their own and therefore should not be covered apart from him. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does oddly appear there's enough coverage of Churchill's pets to warrant a stand-alone or SPLIT article about them. Article could use some cleanup, and exasperation is not a deletion rationale. If there's nothing there after cleanup, and it can be fit into the regular article, then an upmerge is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I DO hope you're not referring to your Honourable Nominator as exasperated. For the record, I was more curious than anything. And I note that Andrew Davidson is a force of nature. I remain intrigued, however, more than convinced... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting it's a strange AfD rationale that doesn't demonstrate any sort of care or BEFORE search. I can see the article has been greatly improved since you've nominated too, though! SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the concept (although the parlous state of the content led to the question) - is Stalin's Moustache notable? Rommel's collection of herbaceous borders? Saddam's stamp album? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting about Wikipedia's rules though: are there reliable secondary sources covering them? SportingFlyer T·C 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One never forgets Wikipedia's rules, dear @SportingFlyer. The tatty little scrap of a stub that existed has been wrangled into a rather gorgeous, illustrated wonder of an article. I don't think WP:BEFORE could honestly be expected to serve here - there has been some thoughtful, even brilliant research brought to bear on the transformation we have witnessed. Le sigh, in fact. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current form is not great. However, there are sufficient sources extant to write a decent article: for example, Nelson, one of Churchill's pets, is notable enough to merit his own article. If kept, when I get back to the UK, I'll rewrite the page from top to bottom. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is easily enough to meet WP:GNG, thanks to the expansion efforts of Cielquiparle and Andrew Davidson. Winston Churchill's article is already long, and splitting this out makes more sense than merging. Edwardx (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Edwardx. OMG check it now. #ChurchillsBlackSwans Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Point made and well taken - although I think you are all quite, quite mad. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It’s an interesting topic that might be interesting for many, deleting it would be pretty bad since it has substantial notability and the user put a lot of work into this article V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Wikipedia has coverage on odd subjects (I still don't understand why we have an article on the George H. W. Bush broccoli comments), but that is generally as a result of there being sustained and continuous coverage which is one of the cornerstones of WP:GNG. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although the nominator is withdrawn, we probably still ought to let this run the full seven days since at least two other users !voted to delete. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short answer to the nom's question is clearly "Yes, they are." In regards to SilverTiger12's point, yes their notability us purely derivative, but for highly notable, well-covered individuals like Churchill the various aspects of their life and work can be split into separate articles for the convenience of editors and readers, even when the separate parts aren't truly independently notable, as long as they can be properly sourced, as this article can. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (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.