Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius (giraffe)

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. Discussion in this AFD changed from supporting deletion or a merge/redirect to supporting a keep based on the number of reliable sources currently available and the current ongoing coverage. That said there were a large number of new accounts and IPs who edited this AFD and made the result somewhat unclear. For those who voted to delete/redirect/merge my suggestion would be that you give it a month and see if the coverage continues and hence the depth of coverage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius (giraffe)

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

A giraffe that recently attracted a few news articles after being culled, as every zoo in the world does to many animals every year. Not notable, and nobody is likely to care in a year. Tangentially, one would be forgiven for concluding at times that the English Wikipedia cannot have articles about current events without fringe activists' contributing their side's views in ways that violate NPOV and usually a few other pillars. Pak aran 02:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redir as below to Copenhagen Zoo, I would have suggested doing so if I'd seen the main article before starting this request. Pak aran 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below Pak aran 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The original nominator (Pakaran) appears to have withdrawn his nomination for deletion.--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion nomination cannot be withdrawn where others support the deletion, see Wikipedia:Afd#Withdrawing a nomination. WWGB (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be kept open, which is why I did not close it or request closing. I struck my nomination statement because I reconsidered my personal vote, and I hope that that is not given any consideration beyond that of one less support, and more oppose, by an ordinary user. Sorry for the confusion :). Pak aran 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there will be no lasting significance to this common culling. Sepsis II (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete Although this incident may have raised some legitimate questions about the practice of zoos euthanizing healthy animals, I think this could be a classic example of a person or animal only famous for one thing. PatGallacher (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it warrants a separate article, but I don't want to see it get deleted completely. So I would say it's best to probably merge it with another article. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't have a page prior to death, shouldn't have one now. It did nothing significant, and nothing significant happened to it. They should have fed it to the lions live, but they probably wouldn't have known what to do with it, further confusing the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.115.192 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "Bengt Holst", no article title matches, but the article already considered for deletion came up. I went to the article for more information and related links. Gee, with so many prophets above knowing with exact certainty what the future status will be... Who knows, this could be a tipping point. 70.210.132.115 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.210.132.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I'm going to stick my neck out here (chortle) and say it's non-notable and fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and use the content in this article to expand that section. 84.198.53.190 (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy as above. Would make a lot more sense. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 08:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, topic is not sufficiently notable to warrant standalone article. WWGB (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Hekerui (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP* Please keep this article, unlike the zoo who did not keep the giraffe. Marius the Giraffe (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Marius the Giraffe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and use the content in this article to expand that section Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 11:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nature of wikis is that such articles are created by well meaning individuals thinking that it's what news the public would want to read, forgetting that this is an encyclopedia for things of more than fleeting existence and relevance, and we have to suffer their existence for a whole week before it can be deleted. Ohc ^¡digame! 12:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy Deb (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that there's a similar story of lions being destroyed due to inbreeding, that is being reported today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy The section there is already incredibly long for what will likely be a non-event barely remembered in 6 months. It certainly doesn't need its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteeven though the article meets wp:GNG I think that now is a good time for wp:Ignore and go with my gut feeling which is delete.
Delete Wikipedia is not news a redirect would be more appropriate. Redsky89 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marius is now part of world history which has caused and may cause protests, death threats, etc. ukdirector (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— ukdirector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

weak keep: by itself, Marius the giraffe would not be notable, but the level of news coverage, debate, and the article does meet wp:GNG. Is keeping the article THAT big a deal? No, and six months from now, we may revisit this and the delete would be unanimous and uncontested, but right now, there are a LOT of people following this giraffe, this story. I expect debates about animal captivity, and zoo handling to increase making Marius even MORE notable, even if it is just infamy. 198.24.6.201 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 198.24.6.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes I am new to editing the articles, but I still have an opinion198.24.6.201 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or you may be an existing editor attempting to !vote on multiple occasions ... WWGB (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marius is the story of people reading rules and not being able to think when there is an obvious solution, because of the giant disconnect because people are interacting with technology rather than with others in the material world, yes he got deleted do not delete him again, the inhumanity of what happened and that is was considered normal course is a story worth repeating so this great mistake can be seen and it is not just the killing but that it was done publicly and people were advised it was education and then Marius was fed to the lions it is the level if obliviousness that is newsMasterknighted (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a section in the Copenhagen Zoo article and no more (perhaps a note in an animal rights list, if one exists). --Zerbey (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting to see how many clever editors already know how long this topic will be relevant, how many think they already know the full impact of the event, and how many inexplicably think this happens every day. Clearly passes WP:GNG, is reasonably well-written and the subject is creating a lot of internet traffic, far more than the zoo ever has. Another AfD six months down the line may produce a more obvious result, but keep it for now. People who don't understand the topic should stay out of AfDs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not lasting, not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The official reaction in Moscow. The scandal unfolding around the world. [1] --Зейнал Вазимовский (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Official"? It's just the opinion of another zoo, not Putin! WWGB (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a commonplace practice, and there is nothing special about this giraffe. Merging content (if necessary) with article on the zoo or the general practice of culling is more appropriate. Risker (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy, where this topic is covered in entirely sufficient detail. This is not a notable giraffe, with no significant coverage of it prior to its death. At most, an article on the event could be argued for, but even that I don't think is justified at this point. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hope Marius' article brings much attention to this senseless tragedy. He has made ALL the major news outlets and will continue for the time to come. R.I.P. Marius the giraffe :— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.123.56 (talk • contribs)

— 71.56.123.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep or Merge with Copenhagen Zoo. - The article is about the story not the animal so it is irrelevant if it is a one-event notability. It just so happens that the title of the article is the name of the animal. If it were to be merged, it belongs to the article of the Zoo but in relation to that article's content, the info here may seem out of place, especially with regards to length.--Theparties (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe culling controversy. The controversy is about the zoo and, on a higher level, the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA) policy on maintaining the gene pool of giraffes. The zoo admits that 20 or 30 animals are killed each year. Having an article on each animal destroyed from this or any other zoo would make Wikipedia over-bloated with articles of this sort, and the Deaths in (year) articles and categories over-bloated as well. Erasmussen (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe Marius controversy. After all this was widely covered by media, Marius death (and mainly the circumstances it occurred at... healthy animal, alternatives refused, the way it was done, etc...) have been talked about around the whole world... not just one more trivial animal culling case. Don't think this should be deleted at all, else think it would req. considering same for a LOT other wiki pages. Marius had no space on the zoo... "whole world" talked about it... can't he even get some few KB's about it at Wikipedia also? Nars (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Nars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I am strongly against delete, but I'm honestly on the fence between keep and merge. My problem with articles being merged is frequently they become mere redirects with little to no content about the original subject. That is useless for someone legitimately trying to find out about the subject. Secondly, I feel this vote is premature. The person who nominated the article probably has no problem with hunting, the whole prey/predator cycle, but currently Marius the giraffe is a cause celebré, with thousands of people upset clouding the vote with passion and emotion. Will it matter six months from now? Maybe, maybe not. But he seems to matter now and as of this time, I think we should respect that. Thirdly, the rules of this site are bent and swayed according to consensus. My case in point. We require articles to be independently "notable". With independent resources, etc... I have seen dozens of cable network "celebrities" get voted off while a reality TV personality on NBC or CBS gets voted in. Teck Holmes, despite parts in more than two dozen movies and TV shows doesn't have an article because he isn't "notable" enough, but a contestant on Survivor can be included with no other credits. I care not one way or the other about Teck beyond making my argument. I know server space is a finite resource, but with all the hoopla, I think this meets notability. Antares33712 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC) PS: I haven't edited in a while because hypocrisy, but for some reason I'm just giving my POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares33712 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Redirect BRDG-1E Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I could also easily go with Redirect, but a lot of the info in the article, esp. over time, wont relate directly to the zoo, so its slightly better on its own. Just to be difficult, i think the article, if kept, should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe), as articles about people who were otherwise not notable except for their deaths, usually are titled in this manner. And, of course, its not just a death, but a killing. The section should not be called "Giraffe culling controversy", as this is not about the policy per se, but the notability of this one killing specifically, which may be setting off some broader debates on culling.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete There's little notability here; if anything's notable, it's the general policies of the Copenhagen Zoo. Most of the keeps appear to be simply trying to jump around WP:NOTNEWS by saying "Oh, it's important right now" but determining whether the notability is temporary is the *point* not something to just ignore. In addition, social importance is irrelevant here -- we care about the notability of the subjects of articles, not whether the articles aid or hinder causes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has clearly raised awareness about the morals and ethics of zoos and conservation, and shocked many people. These values are not widely discussed or reported on Wikipedia. For example, the article Culling does not even mention zoo animals. I think if this article is merged or moved to the Copenhagen Zoo article it may well be eroded in subsequent years, reducing the obvious impact of this incident caused by the culling of this animal. There are many articles on Wikipedia on individual animals with varing degrees of notability, and several of them for very similar reasons to this present article. In fact, there are whole categories on individual animals, e.g. Category:Individual elephants, Category:Individual cats, Category:Individual dogs, Category:Individual horses and yes...Category:Individual giraffes!! If we delete this article, I think there is a heck of a lot more deletions needed.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow up - readers may like to take a look at Talk:Topsy (elephant). It has strong parallels to this current debate.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a notable enough incident to be worthy of a note in history and therefore have its own Wikipedia article – I can imagine wanting to go back and read about it in years to come. And I agree with Mercurywoodrose's point (above), that if it is kept, the article should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe), for the reasons given. Booboo29 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy, The animal only gained notoriety due to the media attention, the Giraffe itself was of no significant interest in to the Giraffe population in captivity or the wild. The controversy though does raise questions surrounding the ethics and treatment of animals born in captivity as was only contentious due to the other options being available to prevent the slaughter of an otherwise healthy animal. The Redirect to the Copenhagen Zoo would be appropriate as the issue was localised there. To retain the page would IMHO be against WP:NPOV and WP:CRITICISM. Scaredmo (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. In the long run I guess a paragraph or so in the zoo article will be appropriate. Averell (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Culling zoo animals may be standard practice, but went on largely ignored by the general public so far. This event is notable for calling public attention to this topic. András Dutkó (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— András Dutkó (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This article is of a very notable event due to the controversy surrounding it and the fact that Marius has become a symbol for unethical culling, This isn't the first case such an article exists on Wikipedia related to an animal or a person who would be unnoteworthy if not for the controversy surrounding them.. 62.198.162.25 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.198.162.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect as suggested above, per BLP1E. Or, more technically, BLG1E. Giant Snowman 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatantly non-notable, non-lasting, single news "fad" subject. Not to mention severe NPOV issues in article's current state. If necessary a condensed version can be merged with specific/general zoo/animal conservation article(s). nielspeterqm (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 21:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the news coverage of this event. Simonfreeman (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't delete. Well written and important enough to be in Wikipedia. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we have this as a stand alone article, it will constantly get challenged. All of the facts here are important, and my goal is to preserve it. As time goes on, there will be less coverage to add to this article. ~~Marius spent his whole life in Copenhagen school, so this article could be merged there.~~ An article about European zoos or zoo practices would be better, but the grouping of ideas could be considered original research unless enough sources and work is added. There can be a problem whichever way this is decided. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 20:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Event received more coverage, about a larger EAZA issue. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk23:06, February 13, 2014

Keep Surely the news coverage makes this notable without a doubt! Contact Basemetal here 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable case. --K0zka (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A separate article looks like the best way to ensure that the information remains in Wikipedia. The relevant section in the Copenhagen Zoo article already looks like the issue might end up dominating that article possibly leading to calls for cutting on grounds of recentism. This event may well be cited in the future when the issues around the existence of zoos are raised which would disprove claims that this is solely news. The article can be an article for deletion candidate again in a few years if this proves not to be the case. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important case on the cruelty of animals in some Zoos. Hetsar (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of "cruelty"? The giraffe was killed by stunning with a bolt gun. No evidence of any pain or suffering. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we now have a second giraffe called Marius, also in Denmark. Giant Snowman 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Similarly to the Séralini affair. This is a controversy with encyclopedic worth. A merge with the Kopenhagen Zoo is not preferred by the size of the article and given that the scope of the affair is wider than just this Zoo. Timelezz (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The continuing press coverage makes this pretty clearly notable. As such, I struck my AFD statement and my initial !vote. I'd appreciate someone letting me know if I messed up doing so. Pak aran 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Copenhagen Zoo. Everyone loves fluffy animals, but it doesn't outweigh the fact that the animal is a WP:VICTIM. As such, content should be merged into the parent article which in this case is the zoo. Also, this need for a seperate article appears to be attracting more attention because of recentism. Valuable content, just not sufficient enough to demonstrate timeless or long term notability. I'll even complete the merge myself if someone {{ping}}s me when this closes --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that WP:VICTIM is a section within Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Marius was a giraffe, not a person.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) anyway, because it is a well-documented historic event, Wikipedia:Notability (events) that brought light on EAZA practice, and it is a first public zoo demonstration. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:06, February 13, 2014
  - I reference WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO because the fundamental criteria remains the same; other than being killed, what makes the article subject notable? Is it the case that the animal has received significant coverage, or is it the event? To make an analogy, we have an article called Pan Am Flight 1104, but we do not have an article called Philippine Clipper (it's a redirect to Pan Am Flight 1104). Although the plane itself is referenced by name in sources, it is not notable outside the event in question. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, so perhaps the page should be renamed Killing of Marius (giraffe) as suggested above? The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - A point I made on the main Talk page. There are several articles about the culling of a single animal which have the name of the animal as the title - see Topsy (elephant), Mary (elephant), Chunee. These animals appear not to have been notable before their being killed - it was the killing and events immediately before and after the cull that made it notable. I totally agree there could/should be an article on Culling in zoos, but I believe the issues here are so different that it deserves to be its own article.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)__DrChrissy (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I see your point, and a cursory reading of WP:EVENT shows us that this event has seen international coverage and is "very likely to be notable". However, the question as to wither the impact will be WP:LASTING, or recieve WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE remains to be seen. Until then, it would be most suitable as part of the Zoo article. In the cases of the three other articles you've shown, they too would be suitable for a content merge (to where would be determined), for the same reasons as this article.--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This doesn't meet WP:VICTIM because no crime was committed. Erasmussen (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Its an attempt at an invalid technicality. In Hitler's time, Nazi Germany didn't commit crimes (under their own laws). Mao wasn't a criminal, only because he was his own government. Zimmerman was found innocent, so does this mean WP:Crime doesn't apply to him? Kuala Lumpur or any other organization can label someone as a criminal, even if their own governments wont. Marius is still a victim, whether or not any government dictates it as a crime. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Godwin's Law. Gotta love it! WWGB (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Not Putin. Ramzan Kadirov: [2]. --Зейнал Вазимовский (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marius is a part of history. Allow him to have this educational place. My niece is in middle school and is doing a history report on this giraffe and his plight. Her first stop was this site for information. Why delete this over opinion on whether or not the giraffe should die. He is a part of history...and he needs his place of reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.128.25 (talk • contribs)

— 207.118.128.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: Don't cull Marius. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Too late for him. András Dutkó (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important story and should stand alone. It has made a lot of people aware of what actually happens to 'surplus' animals in zoos around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle9983 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Michelle9983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This tragic case has been reported fairly extensively around the world and has done a great deal to raise awareness about zoo "culling" practices. Everyking (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. The story has moved on from being a news event and has provoked a worldwide debate on whether culling is the best approach to manage genetic issues in such animals. A merge to Copenhagen Zoo would be a sub-optimal action since even the present content is disproportionate to the balance of that article. Further, broadening this page may be a valid future action. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is arguable that the subject here is a mere news event, but it has raised serious issues about zoo ethics that may have a lasting impact. In any case, the subject is, as it should be, covered in a more condensed form at the Copenhagen Zoo article, so if consensus eventually turns out to be against a separate article on the giraffe, there should be a redirect rather than a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 00:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole arguement about whether an article is "just" news is so nebulous and open to interpretation. As an English person not particularly interested in ball-games, I struggle to understand why Super Bowl XLVIII exists, let alone without any comment regarding it being "just" news. It clearly is news, and debate about it will clearly dissipate with time (if there IS any debate). Perhaps I should label Super Bowl XLVIII for deletion and stand back and watch the fury that would be sure to arise.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis: Right now we have about an even split that is 29-27 in favor of retaining the article out of a total 56 votes/positions cast. So, some editors will surely be angry either way this one goes. I said all redirect/merge or deletes in the deletion category, and all keeps/weak keeps put in the keeping category.HotHat (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. A merge vote is not a delete vote. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 09:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least ten "keep" !votes have come from single-purpose accounts (new editors and possibly repeat !voters) which significantly weakens the "keep" statistic. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of legitimate new voters, drawn in by the delete discussion, who are regular readers of Wikipedia. These do not weaken the keep count. It's up to the admin to determine repeat votes. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 02:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it reads "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed Timelezz (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an estimate of 1 potential duplicate vote found. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. People will see references to the killing/culling of Marius and want to look it up. There is enough to say about this event to warrant its own article - though a mention in one or two broader-topic articles would probably be appropriate, too. As for naming: usual practice is to name this kind of story after the event - though it is by no means mandatory. Personally, I see no benefit whatever in lengthening the name to "Killing/Culling of" and so, as a lover of concision, I oppose that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Massive media coverage, departure point for many discussions on an international level, also in-depth comments, and likely to influence looks on zoo policies and ethics in the future, as a reference point. The interest in this subject goes way beyond media coverage in the US, UK and Denmark, and it is good to have an international, updated reference article available Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Worldwide notability. Abundant references, and very many readers are likely to come here to find out about this giraffe, so it doesn't make sense to delete. 86.25.23.3 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.25.23.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RUBBISH!!! I edit extensively, but I do it as an IP without an account. So stop your unwarranted inferences. And don't label me as an SPA, and don't lecture me about creating an account - in case you were thinking of doing so! 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account which empowers me to make such an edit. The tag fits, wear it. WWGB (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read it yourself. Especially the first two bullet points. 86.31.7.99 (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold your horses. You work from an IP-address which are not necessarily fixed. If (or rather 'when') your Internet Provider gave you a different IP, Wikipedia has no means to bind your previous and your new IP address. That's why most people create an account. Timelezz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes little difference, there was only one estimated duplicate vote out of over 50 votes. It's conceivable that many people here are regular readers who acted on the delete template. They are as much a part of Wikipedia as regular contributors. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the votes tally was stated, there have been 5 single action registered editors vote and 5 IP address only votes placed. For someone new to Wikipedia to find the AFD page is quite impressive, but to only register to place a vote here seems suspicious, regardless of the way they voted - Just saying! Scaredmo (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable and represents a greater problem. Marius is a symbol for a cause and isn't the first such symbol to be on Wikipedia. Gurluas (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a major worldwide story, and people need Wikipedia to represent the truth. The Marius story is of great importance regarding the treatment of animals in captivity, it should be made available for public knowledge and not deleted from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katepilla55 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2014‎

— Katepilla55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP!!! why do so many people want it deleted, out of all the thousands of Wikipedia articles there are? Why are they so afraid that people will read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.186.228 (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.29.186.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I don't understand why wikipedia has nominated this article for deletion. There are plenty of wikipedia pages on murder victims etc. I don't see the difference between this and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Florida_Qur%27an-burning_controversy An incident that gratuitously profoundly offended millions of people around the world, attracting a very high level of worldwide media coverage. I don't think I'll forget about this incident for a very long time and I'm sure there's thousands of other people that feel the same.77.102.156.95 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.102.156.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - or merge eventually; time will tell how much attention this story deserves. Right now it is a major news story; we don't yet know its repercussions. It doesn't really matter if Marius himself never did anything notable, or if the culling was an entirely trivial matter; the real story is the public's reaction, which is unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaraB (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 February 2014‎
Delete - It is very probable that the neutrality of the article can not be maintained or will be contested continually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankow45 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Pankow45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep or merge with an appropriate article such as Copenhagen Zoo. Maybe rename per all the "Notoriety of person Foo" articles. High amount of news coverage meets GNG, this is a unique situation, not just an ordinary day behind the scenes at a zoo. The fact that it is controversial here (per above) is itself evidence of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, preferrably, merge with Copenhagen Zoo. This content is not superfluous for an encyclopedia in the context of the Copenhagen Zoo, as it has been the event which has brought that particular zoo into the public consciousness. I doubt that most people will forget this context in which they first heard of the Copenhagen Zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.206.114.4 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 February 2014‎

— 162.206.114.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Marius has generated wide media attention around the world, and attention from animal rights activists, and is more than just a news article. This is notable, and will likely be so for a long time. Well-written article that should definitely be kept.Q6637p (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is clearly notable enough to warrant it's own separate Wikipedia entry due to the amount of press coverage alone Mr.Television (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but deletion is not actually an option as the reliable coverage about the subject is really massive. Cavarrone 10:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are too many errors in the article for it to be here. There are also cultural differences that are not highlighted enough. Martin_nielsen 21:26, 17 February 2014 (CET)

— Martin_nielsen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So you improve it, you don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.21 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well-sourced and there is extensive and healthy debate on the Talk pages. You can not just claim 'errors' and expect that others see you as an authority for no reason. If there are errors, engage, edit, and source it well. We've seen you pushing that Marius was 2 years old, based on just some reports, while almost all news coverage says 18 months. We've reverted that, and now you opt to delete the whole article. Quite pathetic. Timelezz (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is essential to keep this article as it has become an important issue in Denmark and Internationally. The facts and comments from the side of Copenhagen Zoo are well published and that there is a significant number of people in Denmark and Internationally feel that the Zoo was wrong to kill Marius the Giraffe, to cut it up in front of young children and then feed it to the lions and other animals. Wikipedia is about facts and as long as this story is factual it should be here. I can see no reason why anyone would want to remove this article unless it was to sabotage and to suppress the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandibalt (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Scandibalt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I think the story of Marius has awakened people to what actually happens in zoos and is only the start of possible changes/reforms in the animal keeping world and as long as the content listed is all true I don't see why it should need to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheffieogg (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Cheffieogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

note - regardless of the outcome of the AFD decision, it should be noted that there are two Giraffs in Denmark called Marius. On the 9th February, Copenhagen Zoo's Giraffe named Marius was culled. on the 15th February, it was announced that Jyllands Park Zoo's Giraffe also named Marius may have to be put down. Should this be the case, the notoriety of the Copenhagen Zoo would both increase as it was brought to the fore of the media, but also decrease due to possible confusion over the name - hence any article should be clear as to what it sets out. Cull of 'Marius' or culling policy of Zoo's in general? Scaredmo (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that Jylland's Marius won't be culled. The case with Copenhagen's Marius created the media attention, but Jylland's Marius can be mentioned in the same article as a spin-off. Timelezz (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jylland Giraffe would be culled if (and when) they receive a suitable female Giraffe for breeding. The reasoning behind the cull would be that their Giraffe 'Marius' has an element of cross gene's and would cause infighting between it and the genetically superior other male giraffe in Jyllands. This case has already made mainstream news articles in Europe, America and Australia. Scaredmo (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know more than the Jylland Zoo itself? Timelezz (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The only unusual thing about the entire incident is the zoo's terrible public relations work and typical Danish stand-offishness, neither of which are any surprise. No lasting impact, doesn't pass WP:GNG; section for Copenhagen Zoo seems appropriate. Leondz (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lasting impact is no argument. Millions of articles on Wikipedia have no lasting effect. Nor I think you are able to predict the future. You may have noticed that this already has made some discussion among zoos on how to go about culling, as there seem to be cultural/ethical differences between zoos. Undoubtedly this discussion will continue among zoos and breeding programmes. Though I am curious why you think it does not pass WP:GNG. After all, the culling received worldwide media attention on all continents. Timelezz (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a relatively well referenced article on a verifiable, and arguably notable topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copenhagen Zoo#Giraffe controversy and merge selected content. The arguments by zoos and specialists should be preserved; politics and media responses can be thrown out. arielCo 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielco (talk • contribs)
Keep. There are 55 sources to establish notability and significant coverage. Enough people followed this case in the news that it will be commonly searched for; this is not a borderline case, and I can't believe the Article was even nominated. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (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.