Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel (donkey)

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel (donkey)

[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)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it fails WP:SUSTAINED and violates WP:NOTNEWS. This subject was covered by just two news cycles: briefly and only locally in 2019 when the subject ran away, and another just recently when it was speculated that a donkey spotted in the wild was him. "Human mother", "human father"? "May have been Diesel"? Choice of language and speculation is something I would expect from a video short posted on The Dodo, but not a Wikipedia article. Simply a human-interest story to color the news cycle; not lasting, not important, not notable. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and California. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been broad, international coverage of this animal, both significant and published in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. Coverage is sustained, with dozens of articles spanning several months both in 2019 ([1], [2], [3]) and 2024 ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). That the subject happens to be of human interest has no bearing on notability; mixed-species herding with elk, especially with animals captured during roundups, is rare and of ethological interest. Issues with phrasing have been addressed, though it should be noted that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of speculation: "suspected that", "speculated that", "believed to have belonged", "appeared to have been", "suspect that", "might be". How does this level of uncertainty make for an encyclopedic article? There is nothing in the article about the rarity of "mixed-species herding with elk" (no content, no studies, no sources) which might have some interest. However if the real point was the oddity of donkeys herding with elk then the focus of the article wouldn't be "Diesel the donkey", but Diesel would be a side note in another article that did cover inter-species herding. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. This is not the appropriate venue for discussing article improvements. If you have issues with wording, please bring suggestions to the article's talk page. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting the article needs improvement, but I am pointing out that a subject matter which is brimming with speculation while slim on facts essentially isn't WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in the first place. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody lost their donkey, then it was found. The claims of importance are not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The donkey has received coverage over several years, and by multiple RS. "But it's just a donkey" doesn't change that. Cortador (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the coverage spanned several years, was not sustained, but was only two news cycles: once when the donkey went missing, and once when it was spotted. Per WP:SUSTAINED, brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. This hardly passes for "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, which also cautions that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article ... perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not (NOTNEWS). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an alarmingly disingenuous mischaracterization of the sourcing and a misreading of the guidelines. News cycles don't last for months at a time. News articles were written when Diesel went missing, again when search parties were formed to find him, again when he was seen on a trail camera, again when he was spotted in 2023, and again when he was spotted in 2024. Reading the references is part of WP:BEFORE. When I said dozens of references, I was being literal. Only the best 13 or so are included in the article, but every one of these is full-length, with multiple paragraphs devoted exclusively to the subject, clearly meeting WP:SIGCOV and surpassing WP:GNG. The anti-donkey sentiment here strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like donkeys. This has nothing to do with donkey hating. I understand this is your article so you want to defend it, but please stick to content issues and assume good faith of other editors. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is kind of lame logic, but we have all kinds of temporarily viral tale from Lawnchair Larry to Rickrolling in WP. The donkey is not particularly notable by the animal "biography" standards, but as a cultural news story that went viral, it's got adequate coverage to meet the basic WP:N criteria. And it's humorous. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw and others. Grorp, please stop badgering opposers. Miniapolis 13:56, 30 June 2024 (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.