Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion

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. I'm the best person to close this in the way that I'm closing this, since no one hates our irrepressible need to get our articles from the news and blog cycle than me. In this case, rightly or wrongly, there is no way in which this discussion is ever going to come to a consensus to delete, since that is what Wikipedia is, and no one wants this to run for seven days.

In short, while Cecil may well be a case of BLP1E (he didn't have to be, since apparently he was an attraction before the dentist plugged him), he is so widely covered that his death is big enough for this AfD to fail. And who knows, something may come out of it. Something good. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Cecil the lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• I'm normally an inclusionist, but this seems more like a news issue than an encyclopedic topic, since Cecil didn't have his own article prior to his killing and all of the hits at Duckduckgo for "Cecil the Lion" appear to be either about his killing or unrelated to him. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 13:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If this article is kept, it should be titled Cecil the lion, and info on the killing should be added to the article. I'm not sure of the notability of the subject, however media reports suggest that he was famed and recognised widely, which may warrant an article. Not being aware of the lion myself or its standing with regards to other lions, I wouldn't want to suggest either way whether he is worthy of an article.Rayman60 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree with Rayman60. I'm undecided on whether an article about the lion's killing warrants a separate Wikipedia article, but it seems to me that the lion himself may be notable enough for one. Beyond the killing, which has obviously attracted worldwide attention, my understanding is he was star a attraction at Hwange National Park, and was being studied/tracked by Oxford University. This Guardian article, for example, described him as "one of Africa’s most famous lions," referring to his fame before the killing. Perhaps the author of this article, StAnselm (talk · contribs), can take a shot at recasting it as an entry about Cecil himself? — Hunter Kahn 13:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm struggling to find any reliable sources before this month. He wasn't mentioned on the Hwange National Park page. StAnselm (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is a major news story, in which all news articles seem to suggest that Cecil was well known locally, which combined with the global attention surely makes the lion more than notable. Frankie Roberto (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As article creator, I am very close to voting "delete" on this one. The main reason I created the article was that it much better than having an article at Walter Palmer (hunter). I'd be happy with a move to Cecil the lion. StAnselm (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) We should ping some editors from Zimbabwe or Wikiproject Zimbabwe to give their input. As far as animal articles go, Cecil is definitely notable in that domain of Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:NOTNEWS, no coverage of the animal outside his death. no evidence his death has any lasting impact. The article is also rife with WP:BLP issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) The animal was noteworthy. --Swift (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed to find any coverage of the "famous" lion before the news events of his death. Did I miss some? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the world-wide coverage in high-quality sources is easily more than enough for meeting our notability standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm not sure if the Oxford study establishes notability, but it seems to be that Cecil was locally famous before his death. Maybe someone with some Google-fu can sort through the flood of recent news stories to find some older references? Do we have WP:Notability (animals)? shoy (reactions) 15:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a fairly cut and dried Wikipedia:N/CA to me. Raindog469 (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seems pretty WP:ROUTINE media news cycle coverage with no indication of any lasting impact/import. (while there is a potential for impact, none has yet occurred and many events which might have had lasting impact, instead are merely dust flecks in history. in 6 months or a year if his death is widely noted as having sparked a widespread increase in protection for lions, then we can reconsider. if, as is more likely, in six months people have forgotten this outrage and are twitting about the next outrage....) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing in the sources to indicate this warrants an encyclopedia article. Muscat Hoe (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is another flash-in-the-pan news story that will not have any long-term impact. If that changes, then a page for the Lion itself would be the right thing. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename to Cecil (Lion) and style as a celebrity. Cecil is a celebrity lion and deserves a Wiki page just like any other human or animal celebrity. See Bo (dog).
• Keep or merge Received worldwide coverage and sparked a debate on animal killing. Seems noteworthy enough to have an article on. But perhaps it might be better merging it with another article that deals with animal hunting (a subtitle 'scandals' or something like that). L E X commons (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) What is Wikipedia coming to. This is probably one of the most widely discussed and reported stories. Touches on various issues including Animal Rights, Game Hunting and Internet Activism. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Wikipedia is not coming to be the place where every activist incident is treated as if it were encyclopedic material just because it currently is part of the 24 hour news cycle rather than having actually established that it has lasting impact and import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather arbitrary chopping off of excessive chatter. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia was an activist project to start with. Do we really need the Britannica standards to be employed in the 21th century. What is not high literature and culture is not knowledge. Deletionism attitude is slowly stiffing Wikipedia. To the point: The killing of Cecil re-ignites the debate over trophy hunting--Natkeeran (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] There are well over 4 million articles, i think it will be hard for you to actually justify your claims of "stiffing". And we shall see if Cecil has more power to impact trophy hunting than the absolute assurances people proclaimed that Sandyhook would impact national American gun laws. If it does, hooray. But it actually needs to happen first, and it cannot be using Wikipedia to attempt to make it happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, lets remove all the articles about Middle East, because there is no result, there is no peace yet. Outrage, debate, international media coverage, who cares, because Wikipedia needs elite standards for articles. Do New York Times, National Post, BBC have standards; na, they are just writing reports on a slow news day. I want to keep all the articles in this category: Category:Cricketers by nationality and this one. --Natkeeran (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] You have quite proven my very position - the events in the Middle East typically have long lasting, wide ranging impacts on many real life events ranging from product embargoes to policy creation - not merely passing twitter trending. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Your reasoning is inherently flawed. The reason why we consider events encyclopaedical is not dependent on the question whether or not they actually have a profound and long-lasting impact, but rather, the question if people view it as such. There are countless historical events that have had a big impact on human life (e.g. the invention of some sort of metal alloy that could then be used for some industrial process etc) yet people wouldn't care two cents about, and there are events that in retrospect lead to nothing but held millions of people in its grip. You act as if it is up to you to decide what is worthy of this encyclopaedia and what is not, but frankly, it is not the decision of an individual, but rather the masses. This is not a 19th century encyclopaedia, this is Wikipedia. Welcome. L E X commons (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#The_event you are wrong. There must be Lasting effects and Duration of coverage neither of which has been established. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Instead of going full blown inflexible and citing some arbitrarily defined rules, you should ask yourself what the purpose of an encyclopaedia is: to inform people in a neutral way about important events. If you leave this matter to news sites, you will not get a neutral point of view, as the matter will devolve into something either pro-hunting or contra-hunting. The people clearly want to know more about this lion. So make it possible to share information. Jeez. The people on this website sometimes.. L E X commons (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for telling me what I have and haven't thought about! Did you know that I HAVE thought about this WP:IINFO ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yawn. Stop hiding behind hyperlinks. Nobody cares.L E X commons (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] You may not care that my positions are based on policies, but the closing admin will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Was that supposed to be a witty comeback? Jeez. The people on this website sometimes...L E X commons (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] It was merely a statement of fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm about to bring out the trouts... stop this bickering please. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Victor the Giraffe doesn't have a specific page but his demise in 1977 was considered sufficiently important that he still appears in multiple locations in Wikipedia including as a subsection: Colden Common#Victor_the_Giraffe; I submit that Cecil was of greater importance in that he was not only the subject of scientific studies but was also the victim of an alleged crime (protected animal lured off-site and then killed to obtain a trophy). AncientBrit (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is saying that the death of the lion should not be covered at all anywhere in Wikipedia. Merely that the death itself falls into a category of subjects that do not meet the criteria for having a stand alone encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, though a debate can continue on any name change needed. story is high profile, covered by all the major news networks, and thus easily qualifies for notability. Should not be merged with an article on poaching, etc. we arent creating recentism here, the worldwide media, if anyone, is responsible, but we are not gatekeepers for what is covered by media.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes it is filling the 24 hour news cycle during a slow summer news period. No, there is no indication there is any encyclopedic value to the latest twitter outrage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The lion is noteworthy. The lion was part of a multi-year Oxford University research study prior to being killed ^[1]. The publicity garnered by recent news coverage may not be lasting, but the lion's contribution to science (via the university study) and to the broader cultural conversation about poaching and sport hunting of rare animals is undeniable. Neil Besner (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• gajillions of animals are part of scientific studies. we do not have articles on Rabbit #232012A that was part of the study that helped develop develop insulin for diabetes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, although an article on Rabbit #232012A might be worth including if there was significant detailed information about it, its cultural significance nationally and globally, and a detailed account of its final movements before death -- as there is for Cecil the Lion.Neil Besner (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to "List of cats"- While it is too soon to tell whether or not this incident will have lasting coverage, it should at least be merged to either List of cats or some other article about which Cecil can be included. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with rename to Cecil (lion) Other examples of animals becoming (very) famous only after their death include Marius (giraffe), numerous leopards and Champawat Tiger.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a pretty classic WP:WAX. and it falls short in that for Marius we have wide range of relevant voices like zoo organization who at least made comments (if not any actual changes to policies) - for Cecil all we have is cyberstalkers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing more than news sources. If there is still coverage in sources in one month... delete--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge, doesn't have an article about Cecil himself and is just news, this will be forgotten about in a few months probably. Maybe merge into something about it, like Wildlife of Zimbabwe or Crime in Zimbabwe though.  Seagull123  Φ  19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (Lion) It would be a shame to remove the article entirely. The new article should focus primarily on the life of the animal with a minor note about his untimely death. --JordanLeBlanc (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are suggesting an WP:UNDUE focus - all of the coverage has been about the death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or move to draft - Death seems notable enough to keep an article on it, though honestly if nothing more comes of it I might be persuaded to delete it. Putting it in draft for now to see if it emerges beyond the point of NOTNEWS seems like an okay idea. I will say, I agree with TRPoD that the lion was not notable prior to its death. I can find nothing about it before the recent news. I say this as someone who honestly loves pages for famous animals and plants... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Cecil (lion). Widely covered, and multiple reliable sources state that the lion was well-known and a tourist attraction before its death, so passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there being no actual evidence of the lion being "well known" before his death, this seems to be a case reliable sources falling down on the job, the only actual coverage is the WP:NOTNEWS story of his death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's no WP:RS provided yet that show the lion itself is notable. Only its death. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Cecil (lion) - well known before death. Well covered death story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Do you know of any sources about the lion prior to its death? I really can't find any and we'd need some if we were to rename the article. Hoping you can help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'For those concerned about whether Cecil was famous, please look at this RS.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs)

DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That gives us no info... I don't see a video if there's supposed to be one... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. When I click on the link there is a video in the top left corner - the image is a male lion with fore-legs outstretched and his mouth open.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: Would you mind briefly summarizing how the video supports that Cecil is famous enough for his own article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the BBC news report as an RS verifying that Cecil was already famous/well known in the locality before his death - this was being questioned. Whether he is famous enough, or his death is infamous enough, for a stand-alone article is something that will be decided by community consensus.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." This is also applicable if the victim is an animal. => Keep the article that way. Relevance is almost assured by WP:N/CA. This is more comparable to the Black Dahlia case: Short would not have gotten an article (just about her), but the killing became notable. 2A02:8108:9BC0:18D4:7D63:A17A:F180:6CB7 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Cecil (lion). There's been quite a reaction, and the circumstances of Cecil's death deserve an article. Pkeets (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons given above. Stroller (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep and move to Cecil (lion). I have nominated that redirect for speedy deletion to facilitate a speedy page move. Safiel (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Cecil (lion). For reasons already explained by editors that are in favor of keeping the article. Cecil was already notable to the Zimbabwean and scientific community; the lion's death and resulting reaction furthers that nobility. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Patently passes GNG. Not sure about renaming it though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (lion) People traveled to Africa just to see him, according to NPR radio.http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/07/29/427451836/one-point-of-view-on-how-lions-can-earn-money-for-africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bialosz (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a perfect example of the worst excesses of blindly reprinting every news story and social media share that appears on the internet. We're not really building an encyclopedia any more, merely a blogospherical buzzfeed redelivery system. WP:NOTNEWS --ℕ ℱ 22:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not blogosphere" and "worst excesses" (though I would change the title) No need for harsh words. The lion was very notable in Zimbabwe, kind of animal face for animal conservation, and a major tourist attraction, he was an animal celebrity, drew tourists from other countries and continents.. We have pages for ex. about Uggie the animal actor, and Soviet space dogs, related to science, why disparge an article about animal celebrity from Africa, tied to animal conservation? Why should be an article about him less important than an article about animal actor form USA or Europe? I think we are trying to have some balance here, even though animal conservation issues seem less popular than for ex. movies with animal actors, still worth of attention. Bialosz (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while the papers keep repeating the phrase that he is "famous", there does not actually appear to be any evidence of such "fame". One would, for example expect at least one of the travel guides like Frommers or Bradt or Let's Go! to be dropping a plug "And while you are at Hwange, be sure to check out Cecil the lion and his unique black mane!" but I didnt find any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but travel guides are not neccesary a very detailed examples of measuring fame, specially if it is an animal, or a living person.Travel guides fluctuate, and can omit quite a lot.It would be unusual to single out one animal for the guide, given the fact that an animal may die (from natural causes for ex. or become sick etc. Travel guides focus on things more solid, and therefor are not good sources for judging fame of a wild animal.Bialosz (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Cecil the Lion - Wikipedia is not news, but the lion was already notable before its death, as sources such as the Conservation Genetics journal (which pre-date the killing) indicate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (lion) or Cecil the lion. We have other articles about notable animals. Cecil seems to have been notable before his death and certainly is now. Sarah ^(talk) 23:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Cecil (lion) as per other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this animal is notable, and the rest is WP:NOTNEWS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Article. This is a newsworthy event. The article is neutral and does not take sides. Cecil was the oldest lion in Africa and the focus of an Oxford University Project. The hierarchy is now upset in the pride and the eventual developments in the pride, should be documented here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristan teGroen (talk • contribs)
• Keep - the notability and news coverage have passed any threshold stage by now, and although 'not the news' arguments are used, the issue of game hunting of species that are defenceless by paying hunters is an issue with this as a notable example JarrahTree 23:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The story is getting huge coverage. I came to Wikipedia first, to get the details and find some links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as Cecil (lion). The lion was known before its death as part of an academic study. Its death has been reported and editorialised in media around the world. The circumstances are similar to Marius (giraffe), also killed in controversial circumstances. WWGB (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as Cecil (lion) - The lion was known prior to his death and I'd imagine he was very well known in Zimbabwe, Lion's death has received tons upon tons of worldwide coverage. –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cecil was a celebrity lion before this, and this killing of a celebrity lion is not news that will fade away like a random person being hit by a subway train. This is a signal event that will remain part of future discussion of gun laws, sport hunting, conservation, endangered animals and other topics. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Cecil (lion) - The event is receiving extensive coverage for a reason, Cecil was a famous lion before he was killed. If he wasn't a famous lion there wouldn't be so much, um, uproar about his death. Per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (in some form). Above, TheRedPenOfDoom alleges that this (non-)news item "is filling the 24 hour news cycle during a slow summer news period". Actually, no. There are plenty of celeb Twitter-spats (and at least one presidential candidate) for that; and anyway for the US (a key news/infotainment generating nation) it's not a particularly slow summer news period (what with Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc). That there is plenty of excited/silly talk (and snarky meta-stories, such as this one) about Cecil and his demise does not devalue the encyclopediaworthiness: editors should ignore the silliness (except if this itself becomes notable) and concentrate on what's important. I'm uncertain about which is the best direction for the article; and yes of course there are BLP concerns, but these are not good reason to delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2015 (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.