Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe

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. Renaming / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harambe

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This gorilla was not notable in life, but is getting lots of coverage due to the specific news story of its death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy-pase comments I recently made at
WP:BDP
probably is not justified.

WP:ONEEVENT
: mostly discusses when it is appropriate to create articles about individuals involved in a single event in the context that there would already be an article about the event, which is not even the case here!
WP:NOTNEWS
: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that idividual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.
There are no notability guidelines specific to "individual animals". The closest thing,
WP:NATSCI
, is a failed proposal and covered breeds, species, etc. but not inviduals.
If we stretch imagination a bit some could even think of this "incident" as falling under our definition or a "crime", but
WP:NCRIME
specifically discourages coverage of what it calls "breaking news".
From GNG#
WP:SUSTAINED
: As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be
WP:SIGCOV
also dictates that for an article about Harambe himself to be warranted, there needs to exist coverage of the subject OUTSIDE of coverage of the incident (otherwise, a mention in the incident's article/section is warranted).

☺ ·

✉ 01:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The current article is an event titled as an animal biography. The controversy over the shooting doesn't look it's going to die down any time soon. As it was with Cecil, it may make sense to cover the incident and its fallout more than the animal. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The death of the gorilla has substantial news coverage over the past week. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I don't mind if we keep the article as is. Or, perhaps, we should rename it to "The Death of Harambe"? The zoo incident (and his death) were certainly notable. Perhaps more so than a biography of the gorilla itself? I guess it's a judgement call. I am fine with either way. Note that there was a very similar incident (child falls into zoo enclosure). This occurred with another gorilla named Binti Jua. And we have a Wikipedia article on Binti Jua. The events were very similar in that a child fell into the gorilla enclosure. And the gorilla approached the (defenseless) child. The big difference is that Harambe was killed as a result; Binti Jua was not. So, if anything, the Harambe incident is more notable than the Binti Jua incident. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is deleted because Harambe was not notable in life, other articles, including Marius (giraffe), where the subject can only be deemed as notable for their causes of death in zoological incidents, should be deleted. If this is the case, then there is another article that also has this issue that, because of the controversial nature surrounding the incident, I'd rather not mention unless I need to (which I would prefer to message to someone separately than mention in a easily accessible place such as this). Elisfkc (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisfkc - coy references to a mystery subject during a serious vote here are most unhelpful. I would suggest you either say what you mean without this surreptitious messaging requirement, or strike the comment from this vote. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Refsworldlee: I do not want to mention it by name, because I do not want to be a part of all of the controversy and hatred surrounding the incident if I don't have to. I have emailed you through Wikipedia instead, informing you of the subject. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable people do notable things. This guy was just a gorilla, doing mundane gorilla things, until someone else did him in. Now he's an icon, but he still didn't do anything notable. The entire story should have an article (after the hype cools down, preferably), but nobody in it deserves a bio. Nor the giraffe or the lion. Even that monkey who wore a sheepskin coat to IKEA is borderline. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: what about people who are only notable because of their cause of death? Elisfkc (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burn them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the suicides, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Or at least have an article on the death of Harambe. There are 2.7 million articles outlined in Google News [1] so there is no shortage of source material or interest in this story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to this, I note that WikiProject Animal Rights has assessed the article as mid-importance on the talk page while WikiProject Animals in Media regards it as high importance. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not individually notable but is notable for the zoo as part of its history. There are many human/animal encounters including but they are news, not encyclopedia articles. The reason the zoo has an armed incident response that is not the police is a direct result of previous zoos having these encounters. --DHeyward (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those voting "Keep" here who then qualify that vote with "there should maybe be an article on the incident instead" should obviously be voting "Delete"! The format being employed at the moment documents a creature which is no more notable than any other of its species, save for its notoriety or victimisation (whichever opinion you hold) during this one incident. The story could indeed be told in an event article - so Delete this one. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think it's obvious that "Rename the article" is the same exact thing as "Delete the article"? Really? That's an interesting definition of "obvious". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Renaming is NOT deletion. Renaming is a page move, leaving a redirect behind, with all history intact. Even if we wanted there to be no redirect, there's an administrative move that does not require deletion, nor the deletion process. A rename !vote is not a delete !vote. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is also not recreating. I voted to delete, because I've seen similar victim AfDs end in consensus that the event was the notable thing, and result in a mere retitling. The lead, infobox, structure and categories stayed in biography form (at least one was later fixed). Speaking only for my own vote, I wanted a fresh build. An edit history is part of the total package, and a notable event's shouldn't contain a non-notable bio remnant, but start from its own beginning. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Weak rename - The subject is clearly notable, as shown by extensive news coverage. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of moving the page to "Death of Harambe", but I'm on the fence there due to
WP:COMMONNAME. What would people be searching for? Harambe. Furthermore, when searching for more information about the death of harambe, they're necessarily going to want to know more about the gorilla itself. I understand that Harambe wasn't notable until after death, but after death, I would think the entire gorilla became notable, simply due to the sheer volume of news coverage involved. I would prefer to simply Keep, but if consensus goes the other way, I wouldn't object to renaming the page. I strongly object to deletion. Fieari (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to something along the lines of 2016 Cincinnati Zoo Gorilla incident or Death of Harambee the Gorilla, much as we already have a page called
Death of Cecil the lion.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per precedents with Binti Jua and Marius (giraffe), where there has been no need to rename the articles as "Death of....". The incident, and the controversy over the shooting of the gorilla, have drawn international attention and are notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Salvidrim. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge- Prominent news event whose history should be kept in tact, with a redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per precedence of Marius (giraffe). Masterknighted (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The controversy surrounding the gorilla's death has received extensive media coverage and highlights on the topics of animal abuse and killings of endangered species (like
Cecil the lion). CloudKade11 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The controversy also surrounds allegedly negligent parenting, itself a hot-button topic, and allegedly negligent zookeeping (not so hot, but a thing). This is outside the scope of a gorilla's biography. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been virtually no coverage on the life of this particular gorilla or its significance other than being shot. We have articles on lowland gorillas. We have articles on zoos. This news cycle incident is covered in the article on the zoo. There is no reason that the gorilla or the boy should have a biographical entry because of this one incidence. Nor should we create articles about any other gorillas that occupy that same enclosure. There is no notability conferred to the subject of the article simply because they died. Flip it around and if the gorilla lived and boy died, we would not create a bio on the boy - it would be an event in the history of the zoo. See San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks for the reason why the zoo had and armed response team (instead of police) and the lack of individual biographies for both the dead and living. --DHeyward (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify The article has gotten heavy coverage in the present, but it is too soon to say whether the death of Harambe will have lasting impact or if this will just end up being a
WP:RAPID and then re-nominate it in a few weeks if notability has not been determined, or moving it into draft space and only moving it back into article space if and when notability is proven. I would prefer keeping per WP:RAPID, since there is a lot that can be said about the gorilla that is source-able to reliable sources, and because there are a lot of people searching for Harambe (the Cincinnati Zoo page normally had a little under a hundred views per day, but exploded to several thousand a day after the indicdent, indicating that a lot of people are searching for information on the gorilla and that it would be more helpful for our readers to keep the information in article space at present [2]). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Cincinnati Zoo article per
OnionRing (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - there's nothing really to merge and renaming does nothing since it's basically the same as the current section in the zoo article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to
C 16:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Precedent of Jambo. Accompanying debate and public interest surrounding article's subject and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.22.147 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@172.78.22.147: Jambo was notable for what he did in his life, not the manner of his death. Elisfkc (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Jambo sets a precedent. Harambe alone is notable for the public reaction and debate surrounding his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.22.147 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was left on the Talk:Harambe page. So, I moved it here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck but rest of comment unstruck. ☺ ·

✉ 12:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep and consider rename the gorilla and his actions preceding his death are definitely notable, with a massive amount of reliably sourced media coverage. You could certainly rename it to "Harambe incident" or "Harambe shooting" or similar, would be all for discussing that, but until then keeping it at the gorilla's name makes sense. Ranze (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are precedents that justify the entry.Mistico (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with a strong recommendation to rename to Killing of Harambe the gorilla. Harambe in his own right is unlikely to meet GNG standards on his own, otherwise there would have been a high probability we would have already had an article on him. The killing event however is likely to meet GNG standards well beyond the immediacy of the current event. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion") — AjaxSmack 16:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to
Killing of Harambe. Such an article would rightly include fallout from his death, which seems to be notable (remains to be seen). Star Garnet (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but does need renaming. Whichever way this article is renamed should also apply to Marius (giraffe) for consistency. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for comments on a related page Could interested editors please take a look at Talk:List of animals culled in zoos. There is discussion there on the overall scope of the article, but this came about because of different interpretations of whether Harambe was euthanised/killed/culled. Input would be welcome. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in
WP:ONEEVENT standards are, and because I am exploring the justifications for keeping this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A redirect also addresses
WP:POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closing administrator We might want to let this one run another couple of weeks, as per
WP:RAPID, both to allow emotions to cool and to see how long the press attention continues, although in this case it may be extended by the advent of the silly season.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename, to reflect the whole event, rather than just the gorilla. True, the animal was not notable in life, but the event itself is notable and has been a perpetual topic of discussion on multiple fronts. Regardless of whether or not the name change is implemented, I believe it is imperative that the article is not deleted, as it has already made an impact.
talk•cont 20:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Not merely not a policy-based argument, this argument promotes the use of wikipedia as a

WP:SOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't exactly see it as being applicable to WP:SOAPBOX, as it's not exactly an opinion so much as a fact that it's had an impact on the culture, at least of 2016. I know, gorillas and all manner of creatures die in the animal kingdom by human hands all the time, but for some honestly hypocritical reason, this one is a subject of debate. I personally could care less about the gorilla incident, but I won't deny that it has made its mark, like Kim Davis.

talk•cont 22:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Cincinnati_Zoo_and_Botanical_Garden where there is already a section on the killing of Harambe, which is largely duplicates the separate article. This incident is as much about zoo policy as about Harambe as an individual. Sentience (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have an article on Donald Trump...--Ste moc 05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking and will post a valid argument soon, right?

talk•cont 10:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

would it matter? silverback gorilla lives matter too...its not like it a common species, its endangered..has they used a tranq gun instead of shooting it dead, we would not be here in the first place, there would not be an article, no uproar, the child will be safe, the gorilla would have recovered and gone back to doing nothing at all....--Ste moc 10:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least agree that this subject matter should have an article. Yeah, I wanted to hear your thoughts as I didn't want to see your input salted.

talk•cont 11:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep, and possibly rename. Harambe's death has certainly changed public debate in the U.S. about zoos and it's already pretty clear that the story has legs. Just today there is a new editorial in NYT Do Gorillas Even Belong in Zoos? Harambe’s Death Spurs Debate. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source. Like Cecil and big-game hunting, the death transcends the animal into larger social questions. It supports both keeping the article, and renaming it to "killing of.." since it was the death that gained notoriety ie. "Death Spurs Debate" (NYT headline). --

C 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Meets GNG. Covered nationally US and internationally in multiple countries. Covered extensively by radio, TV, and newspapers. Renaming to "Killing of Harambe" re animal right issue seems appropriate. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident, this article offers nothing that isn't already there.LM2000 (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Killing of Harambe" (1st choice) or redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident (2nd choice). The gorilla was not notable in life, and the killing was the only thing that gave the animal any coverage; the article's current state pretty much reflects this. That being said, the killing itself has generated a (imo) grossly disproportionate amount of media attention, which ensures solid notability. If there is significant expansion to be done beyond what's already at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden article, then the article should be renamed appropriately. GAB^gab 14:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead as it's clearly best connected to the event and is therefore not at all likely to have anything to suggest its own article otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident, where this subject is already adequately described. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2016 (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.