Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut (squirrel)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwirkle (talk | contribs) at 00:12, 4 November 2024 (→Peanut (squirrel): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Peanut (squirrel)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Peanut (squirrel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Received little coverage up until their death, which was hardly notable in of itself (a routine euthanization). Almost all content of note is either ultimately unimportant or can be merged into New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This village pump discussion states that social media following doesn't factor into whether someone was notable or not. Or, in this case, a squirrel that lived, got a social media following, died, and was then the subject of media sensationalism and political chatter. Departure– (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "Peanut (squirrel)" article meets the Wikipedia notability criteria per WP:N and complies with the WP:NOT policy, warranting its retention. It is imperative to edit the article with care to maintain a neutral tone and viewpoint, aligning with WP:NOT guidelines. The untimely demise of Peanut the squirrel is likely to prompt changes or reforms in wildlife and animal treatment policies, particularly within the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Given Peanut's significant role in this movement, the article's existence is justified. Innovatorpath (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is your first edit, how the hell would you know that, anyway? Qwirkle (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This dose not deserve to be deleted. 172.59.98.13 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that? Departure– (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story may develop further; I don't think the squirrel will. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately, the squirrel will not develop further. That's the point of the internationally sourced coverage, the why's and how's of this event. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine a scenario in which we have separate articles for the squirrel and the death of the squirrel. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify A lot of things suddenly go viral but then fizzle out. If Trump hits the campaign trail with a proposed animal welfare law named after Peanut, or if Peanut becomes a long-lasting internet meme, or something along those lines, keep the page. If everyone forgets about it by next week, remove it. Bremps... 21:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an appropriate use of the Draft: space. Instead, either we keep it now (and if there's no sustained coverage, then we can delete it in a couple of years), or we delete it now (and if there's coverage in the future, someone can ask for a WP:REFUND). Dumping an article in the Draft: space to avoid making a decision is just kicking the can down the road: we'd be creating problems for editors in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before this gets closed as speedy keep, I just want to ask, what makes the coverage anything more than sensationalism? What effects will this have once everything's said and done? Departure– (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://tenor.com/view/meme-im-sayin-like-thats-what-im-sayin-gif-24363099 Bremps... 22:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's much too early to call for WP:SNOW. The argument about 'legalised animal abuse' sounds more like trying to right great wrongs than any sort of argument for the notability of this squirrel in particular. And the ITN discussion is on hold while this AfD is debated, which is the correct way around. We absolutely should not be trying to push this article to the main page when it's not clear that we should have the article at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern GenevieveDEon, and will explain further. The notability for the topic comes in two stages: first, the squirrel's long-time internet notability, and second, its death (the topic of 'Recent deaths') and the swirl of public comment and media coverage surrounding it. My comment was not to right a great wrong but to focus on notability. The squirrel and the manner of treatment is making international news and media coverage across the U.S. A snow close seems appropriate as it seems obvious that notability in independent sources has been achieved. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable, discussed by people such as Elon Musk. Has gained significant attention on sources such as CNN. Jattlife121 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk will, frankly, say or do anything for attention. We're not a gossip magazine, we're an encyclopedia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a user driven encyclopedia. You are not the one writing it. If users want a page on it, who are you to say otherwise? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If users want it then it will stay up, hence the discussion. They didn't claim they have jurisdiction over the article. You're being needlessly hostile. Juyenxo (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not being needlessly hostile. If anything could be argued there, it would be that they are responding to, quite honestly, puzzling hostility from Genevieve 2600:4809:B932:B901:157C:5ED5:82C6:7BAF (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genevieve stated an opinion about Elon Musk, then a fact about Wikipedia. It was a blunt comment, but it wasn't hostile. On the other hand, "Who are you to say otherwise?" is possibly hostile, and is definitely confrontational.
For what it's worth, just because a famous person makes a comment about a subject, that doesn't make the subject notable beyond that one comment. I don't think that's the case here though.
This subject's notability is comparable to Harambe and Geronimo the Llama who were made notable by media coverage, both due to their deaths.
This subject, having gone viral and whose death has drawn comment from notable figures, along with questions about animal rights seems fitting for the encyclopedia. 2A00:23C8:9C16:8E01:A0BD:CA1C:3442:BA7F (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The news is having strong repercussions even outside the United States. Maybe move to "Euthanasia of Peanut the Squirrel", since the event itself was more notable than the animal. Svartner (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination was premature. There are stories coming out hourly from American and international news outlets. It would have been far better to tag the article now for notability concerns and, if the concerns were valid, nominate for deletion a week or two later to assess all the sources properly. Thriley (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are multiple articles dedicated to animals who were killed, notably Harambe, Travis, Tyke, as well as categories for annual notable Animal Deaths, which this would fit into for 2024. Otherwise general notability and sources are sufficient. Lacanic (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course other stuff exists. But I don't believe general notability is met here. For one thing, we have a 'reaction' sub-section for someone who did not, in fact, react at all. There's nothing here to suggest that this entire story isn't minute trivia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What notority did Harambe have before his death? What changed about zoo enclosures since then? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quickly comment to say that Peanuts was a squirrel and didn't kill or do anything that can be feigned as injury to those around them. Even then. If a squirrel in my hometown had rabies and singlehandedly caused multiple fatalities, before the state euthanized it, that wouldn't be deserving of an article, would it? I fail to see how having a social media presence does anything for notability beyond sensationalizing it. Departure– (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a rabies outbreak event would be noteworthy. Are you really questioning that? 64.229.210.77 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EGGBUTTEATERLOL (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta specify. Bremps... 05:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious draftify, but hey, who cares about sustained coverage when you can create articles off of short-term sensationalism. Seriously though, what do we lose in draftifying here? To me, this is almost celebrity sensationalism. A drummed-up clickbait-esque controversy. Yes, there is coverage. Current coverage. Why not draftify and re-evaluate in, say, even just a week? And seriously, we can't keep saying "someone notable said something about this story so it must meet NEVENT". That's not how notability does and quite frankly should work here. I mean, really, what are we doing here? DarkSide830 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV of the squirrel and one of the sources is the WP:NYPOST. Coverage needs to be significant and not just fleeting news coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the SigCov on the squirrel, at least something about the subject should be covered somewhere. Failing the preservation of this article, Redirect to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation#2024. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has been shown, I've just made some edits to expand upon the pre-Death notability. Davisonio (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is no article about Fred the racoon, killed in the same story, thus meaning this animal has gained a certain amount of notoriety in the issue of wildlife conservation as a pet. Bouzinac (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May well get more write-in votes for president at this point than some third-party candidates. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only serious potential or even slightly plausible reasons for this deletion among the 14 listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy are numbers 8 (failure to meet the relevant notability guidelines) or 11 (overcategorization). Reason #8 is clearly nullified by guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability because of voluminous news coverage. So the only remaining deletion option (within normal policy) is to put this topic in the history of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. One media figure said this story, "has united the world at a Harambe level of virality." Now 8 years into the Harambe story, its article has 37,121 bytes, including 69 footnotes, which if included in the relevant zoo article, would inflate its size by 64%. Additionally, with so many expected links to this squirrel story, from both inside and outside Wikipedia, making such links redirect to the NY Conservation Dept would be frustrating, confusing, and highly impractically bloat that article. Samuel Erau (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A burst of news coverage is specifically not a reason for notability per WP:N and WP:NEVENT. We are looking for enduring, significant coverage, of which there isn't any, the few articles pre-death are trivial mentions. There's yet no indication that this has reached a meme status like Harambe did in the wake of that incident, so trying to compare it to that is not appropriate either. — Masem (t) 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why I wrote "expected links". I'm being predictive of future interest. Samuel Erau (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CRYSTAL. Your expectation is not fact. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed. Irrelevant. That's about predictive content. I was just being predictive for the sake of this deletion decision, to avoid the inefficiencies of deletion, protest, and the predictable WP:REFUND. Samuel Erau (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using this argument, nothing would ever be deleted from Wikipedia, since the person who wrote the article is interested in it, so it should be kept? WWGB (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This is WP:INTERESTING at heart. It has still not been established that the subject of this article was notable for anything. Trivial celebrity gossip is still trivial celebrity gossip if the celebrity is a squirrel. Simply being discussed in the press is not itself a measure of notability - they'll fill their pages with something. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the squirrel is a celebrity, then they are notable. 2A00:23C8:9C16:8E01:A0BD:CA1C:3442:BA7F (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeout for all the people voting keep - can you quickly tell me what makes the news coverage not sensationalism? I do agree that coverage exists. I'll even say it's getting a lot of it, and from good secondary sources, too. But is this any more than so many other stories this year that are interesting but unimportant? For instance, remember that time two months ago we got a second moon? How has that affected you in any way aside from astrology? My point is it's another animal dying, but this time with a social media following. 3–4 million pets per year are euthanized so I don't see how one being a.) a squirrel and b.) Instagram-famous makes it any more notable than a cat at my local shelter who was euthanized with no fanfare. Departure– (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add onto this that news outlets in America specifically are probably proud to offer news coverage of unimportant and viral content, given that thing that's scheduled to happen in two days that the general public might not want to think about. Departure– (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the news coverage is or isn't sensationalism is not relevant to its notability - I don't see anyone clamoring for the deletion of the death of Caylee Anthony or the murder trial of O. J. Simpson. The GNG are "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All of these criteria have been met. I think your misgivings about the article are more along the lines of WP:RECENTISM, but in my view, this article will pass the WP:10YEARTEST: I still think about Cecil the lion and Harambe today.
What sets this particular euthanization apart from the other 3-4 million euthanizations/year is that a.) it has significant media coverage, b.) most euthanizations do not involve the government forcefully entering your home to seize and destroy a healthy, well-cared for animal under threat of arrest.
And with that out of the way:
Keep – per above.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we should delete the article about the second moon? For what? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure– I think you've identified a communication failure. AFAICT, some editors use the word sensationalism to describe soft news, and especially the subgenre of oddities. Sensationalism, more narrowly defined, is turning an ordinary car wreck with minor injuries into a breathless headline such as "Emergency crews rush to life-threatening situation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am very tired of people trying to invoke WP:SNOW in situations where there is a live discussion and an issue to be resolved. It's not just a magic word to make inconvenient objections go away. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the vote stacks up 4:1, pretty clear consensus at this point. But if we want to drag this conversation on and waste more editors time, ok I guess. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling isn't a substitute for discussion. As the one who opened this deletion nomination on grounds of notability, I have yet to see how, even with the numerous Keep votes reiterating the existence of sources and "being interesting" or "popular", this isn't just another sensationalist news piece that will have any great effect to those not directly involved. Departure– (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of those policies, and I believe you're aware that historically any AfD proposal with such a massive disparity of keeps/deletes has a snowball chance in hell of succeeding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, there is no way aside from WP:IAR that a closer would delete the page, so WP:SNOW applies, especially when it is putting a hold on potential action elsewhere. It meets WP:SIGNIFICANT, which was what you asked for and said you'd be looking for in the main page discussion ("If and when the article gets more significant coverage, let me know and I'll change my vote..."). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me towards an article that proves the notability of this topic? All I see in the article is sensationalism and a tale of a man being shot down by the system - examples of which are in themselves not newsworthy and happen all the time. Departure– (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SIGCOV, which the page easily meets. You may be reading into it something which isn't there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also see WP:NSUSTAINED which this page clearly does not meet. Masem (t) 15:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been four days since Peanut died, and news coverage is still ongoing. It's far too early to invoke WP:NSUSTAINED.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSUSTAINED says we should wait for that sustained coverage to happen before creating an article, its how we meed NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of NSUSTAINED, there were still sources talking in-depth about the squirrel before it was euthanized. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 5 hour raid is not a routine euthanasia 70.23.216.138 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I voted keep, I want to note that this isn't a valid argument; see this essay section. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I do agree there was coverage earlier, too. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a criterion for retention. The proposer argues that the notability of the subject is not demonstrated (and I agree); others have claimed that WP:GNG is met. The closing admin should evaluate these claims on their merits. This isn't a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it governed by how many views or external links a page receives. If a subject were notable, we should document it even if it never got read; conversely, if a subject were not notable, we should not give it its own page no matter how loud the demands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now this is an off-wiki canvassed discussion, I suppose? The page being noticed on social media isn't a formal reason to keep, nor is pageviews. Departure– (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
God, I hadn't actually followed the link. They really do mean that this page, the deletion discussion, has been noticed (and actively pushed to its followers) by an account which appears to be libertarian cryptocurrency pushers. That explains some of the weird IP posting we've been getting. I'm no longer on Twitter myself, so I can't easily see the surrounding context for that post. Closing admin, please be aware of this context. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also note the Twitter post has over 118 thousand views, 150+ reposts, and mentions "a Wikipedia editor" (singular), most likely referring to the infobox on the mobile UI. At least I hope. I, as the one who opened this discussion, would much prefer not to be the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign, so I hope I'm right on that front. Departure– (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Artanisen, the animal has recived lots of covrege. If we do deleat we could merge into a larger animal about his non-profit. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially ambivalent about this as I am unsure the poor creature was sufficiently notable in its own right. That said, sometimes the circumstances surrounding a death are enough to push the subject over that line and ring the WP:N bell. I believe that is the case here. The level of coverage is bonkers and it is international. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @NotQualified, @Artanisen, @Lacanic, @Jay.Jarosz and @LuxembourgLover - WP:WAX is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.)

See the examples there. We're not arguing no animal is worthy of an article, we're arguing whether Peanut needed one. Most of the arguments against this article are stating that the coverage is sensational in nature. Departure– (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances around Harambe are extremely similar. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harambe nearly killed a kid, and then had enduring coverage due to becoming a meme in the years after. None of that applies here. Masem (t) 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The squirrel only died less than a week ago, it's too soon to say if it won't have more coverage in the future, and like I've said, the squirrel still had enough coverage before it died. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The few articles that mention the squirrel well before this point were trivial in coverage and fail SIGCOV. And if we can't judge enduring coverage now, then we shouldn't have an article to start (the whole point of NSUSTAINED) That's why we have NOTNEWS and why Wikinews exists for those that want to write about current events without the conformance to encyclopedic standards. Masem (t) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how these are trivial coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was under the impression that he became a meme much later. Excluding the meme, I think it's quite similar, but you do have a point that perhaps the media coverage wouldn't have been as widespread. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now Not a fan of how every time an article is started about a new or recent thing it's immediately nominated for deletion. IMO in order to justify a premature deletion before it's possible to adequately assess things like enduring notability, there has to be some other pressing concerns that warrant an expedited deletion (e.g. BLP vios or copyvios). Given that there are no such issues with the page, the burst of coverage in reliable, secondary sources is enough to justify keeping the page, at least for now as it's not harming anything and there is no reason to rush to delete. Are the delete !voters right to say there is no enduring notability? We won't know that for at least a few weeks. The quality of the sources we have already is pretty good: the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Guardian, NBC News, USA Today, CBS News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are all respected and generally reliable outlets that do not have a reputation for dabbling in sensationalist, trivial, gossipy, low-quality news. I'd say the best argument the delete !voters could make in favor of their position is that the discussion should be revisited in a month or so when it's more possible to substantiate statements about enduring notability or lack thereof.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that we had less premature creation of articles about the minutiae of news trivia. AfD is our best tool for countering that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't rush to create articles and Don't rush to delete articles are two equally legitimate and competing (yet not mutually exclusive) viewpoints on how to handle content about events that occurred too recently to know if they will have enduring notability. But in my view, WP:DELAY is at best a guideline that editors should keep in mind before creating articles, not a legitimate reason to delete content that has already been created. There is no policy that requires editors to wait an arbitrary, unspecified amount of time before they are allowed to start a new article about a subject whose notability cannot be assessed yet. Deleting perfectly fine, non-problematic content to deter editors from creating new articles in the future accomplishes nothing and is counterproductive to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Any strong claims one way or the other about the potential for notability to endure fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Don't get me wrong, I've !voted to delete bad articles about new topics before, but only when there's some other underlying problems that make the article unworthy of mainspace (BLP vios, coverage only in low-quality unreliable sources, etc). There are no such issues here. This page is perfectly fine. If the only concern is that notability won't last, wait until it's even possible to substantiate that argument with some evidence that notability did not last.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's plenty of media coverage and reliable sources about the subject. Deiadameian (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again (louder for the people at the back): the existence of sources does not establish the notability of the subject. It's not been clearly demonstrated that the life and death of this squirrel is notable independent of the agency that killed it. The presence of sources does not automatically make the subject matter non-trivial, nor worthy of its own article. What is it, beyond 'people are talking about it', that sets this unfortunate creature apart? As I've said on ITNC, if someone can find a good reliable source that sets this story in its wider political context, that would go a long way towards addressing it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in reliable, secondary sources is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. And as an ITN/C regular, I can assure you that the criteria for being posted to the In The News box is not at all the same as the criteria for having a page on the encyclopedia. You might want to see some "wider political context" to be convinced that it should be listed on ITN, that's fine. I don't think I agree with that as ITN is not just for politics. But "wider political context" (whatever that could possibly mean in this context) is absolutely not a criteria for notability on Wikipedia more broadly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting that 'wider political context' is some kind of gold standard. That was a purely personal observation on my part - people seem very exercised about this case for political reasons, but nothing in our article (at the time of this writing) explains that. It looks like a cute pet with a social media account (these are ten a penny and not obviously notable) combined with a private citizen's grievance against a government agency for an injustice (also sadly extremely commonplace). But we've had drive-by posters saying things like 'overthrow the government' and 'Peanut can swing the election', and I have been told a couple of times that I'd understand why if I was American. I actually work in local administration myself, and I would be extremely surprised if (for example) one of our pest control teams killed someone's pet, and the result was a national outcry and commentary about the national government. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the existence of sources does not establish the notability of the subject As VanillaWizard pointed out above, notability is determined by reliable, secondary (and independent) sources. To say that the sources on this article (which are reliable) don't make an article notable is like saying being a human doesn't make you a Homo sapiens. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Had to go waaaay back in Gnews to try and find mentions of Peanut before the recent bout of coverage. [1] and [2], but it's stories about a squirrel living with a human, that has an instagram page. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Had the squirrel not been seized, they wouldn't be notable. A ton of coverage recently over the seizure, but nothing before that. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The general notability guideline only needs multiple in-depth reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the two you provided before the squirrel's death are in-depth about the squirrel, independent, and reliable. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You just dismantled your own argument, those are two in-depth independent and reliable sources about Peanut before his death which means they warranted an article before this whole debacle. Scuba 17:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... He meets the notability standard with articles prior to his death and the manner of his death has become an international new event. 96.43.52.152 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is fundamentally no reason to delete this without also having to delete harambe and since that page has been up for years i dont see that happening.
This is in the public conciousness, it has high quality sources on the subject itself, and we can keep information objective.
The fact that the squirrel was not famous untill death does nothing to deteriorate the quality and notability of this article. Olaf Olsen Sundstein (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peanut's euthanasia has received a massive amount of domestic as well as international media attention, considering the pet was for many years a social media sensation, and the circumstances surrounding it's capture and killing. Jaritchie23 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Justifying this article by pointing out that other animals have articles is like justifying an article about an unremarkable 6th grade science teacher because Marie Curie has an article.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper; justifying an article because there is news coverage, as opposed to secondary sources, isn’t enough. Not every news splash lasts. To have an article, something should have substantial secondary sources, or be so momentous that it obviously, no-two-ways-about-it, will.

Pointing out that closers often ignore policy doesn’t justify calling for it. Qwirkle (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that "unremarkable" 6th grade science teacher had articles from the BBC, USA Today, The Guardian and a dozen other major sources talking about them... then yeah that teacher should have an article. Scuba 17:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Some news coverage doesn’t justify an article. If they were, say, an accident victim, their name could be in hundreds of papers. It’s about what kind of coverage, and whether it becomes secondary. Qwirkle (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject was already receiving significant coverage since at least as early as 2022. [3], [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurryTime7-24 (talk • contribs)
Here's an article from PBS on a coyote. This is about the same level of coverage you brought up, but I notice that Mercy (coyote) is a red link. Departure– (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find another article on the Coyote? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source is not enough; also, that's WP:WAX right there, and you said that it was an argument to avoid previously. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. WP:GNG mentions the importance of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but it also refers us across to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Now it appears to me that creating an article about every creature that's mentioned by name in a news article would definitely be an indiscriminate collection of information. That's what I'm driving at here. What is it that distinguishes this cute critter with a social media account and a news mention from any other? And I think it would do a great deal to answer that question if the article's coverage of the killing of the squirrel established something of the nature of the wider outcry. At present, it merely tells us that there was such outcry, and that Peanut's owner is angry, which is predictable. What's the angle here? GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference is that there are multiple sources that warrant notability before the death of the squirrel. For the coyote, unless sources can be found, it does not warrant notability. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is routine coverage of wholesome animal stories doesn't guarantee notability. Mercy and so many other animals don't have articles for just this reason. Departure– (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this WP:Routine coverage? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of fact, I found a parallel situation to this deletion argument. Henrietta, a one-legged turkey from Hobart, Indiana, was stolen and that led to local coverage. The bird is, in my opinion, more notable - compare Instagram fame to prosthesis - alongside having a similar and equally unpopular fate, but didn't quite reach the front page nationally. Coverage is a.) directly concerned with the subject, b.) not connected to the subject directly, and c.) in multiple publications. Henrietta (turkey) is a red link. It was never created. It wouldn't be created today, as a few days after the story of the bird being stolen broke, coverage had ceased. The existence of multiple reliable independent sources does not automatically guarantee notability and mean that an article should exist, especially if coverage dies after a few days which I strongly suspect will happen. Departure– (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
compare Instagram fame to prosthesis? How do you determine notability? As you've said, the turkey never made national news. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that turkey had no coverage whatsoever prior to its theft. Peanut has. Furthermore, only 3 reliable sources commented on the incident that I was able to find. There are so many reliable sources that are talking about the squirrel, and it's been three days since then with more sources commenting on it every hour or so now. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot assume that the coverage will go away or stay; like VanillaWizard said, the don't rush to delete articles/create articles are both valid but WP:DELAY is essentially "not a legitimate reason to delete content that has already been created." UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, in the same way that "other stuff exists" is not a strong argument that something should exist, "other stuff does not exist" is not a strong argument that something should not exist — this is an even weaker argument, as it's less indicative of precedent. See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Yes, Mercy (coyote) doesn't have an article. Henrietta (turkey) doesn't have an article. My cats don't have articles, either. What does this have to do with whether or not this page should exist? Nothing. And who's to say that just because those pages are red links that they should stay that way? By that logic, because this page is a blue link, it too should stay that way. Maybe there's a fitting article out there that "Henrietta (turkey)" could redirect to and we just haven't identified it yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this specific thread started from a comment specifically criticizing the use of the argument that is now being used in the replies. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just in the opposite way. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject covered by multiple reliable sources prior to recent death. significant coverage. The raid was complete overkill with large number of officials along with judicial oversight meaning that the authorities took it as a significant event rather than 1 official going to the home owner to ask about whats going on which which would be the normal reaction to a minor animal incident. Getting a judge to sign off on a search warrant is normally a major crime not a stray squirrel. Going on to kill the squirrel?? The result has been global coverage that continues to grow. I am in the UK and it has been covered by every major new organisation. significant coverageRonaldDuncan (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The significance is not in the animal’s notoriety or lack thereof before the seizure, the reason it’s getting so much attention is that it is seen by many as an overreach and abuse of power by a government agency. The article definitely needs cleaning up but the subject matter does indeed have significance. Lincoln1809 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this would not have an article without the seizure, and this could possibly be merged into a bigger article on the election. This is highly unlikely to satisfy WP:LASTING.2600:4808:610:7C01:C48:D4B0:E2A0:E549 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Relatively high-profile scandal, made national news. Maybe move to a title making the article about the scandal itself, rather than the squirrel. –DMartin 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW, based on other comments. Consensus to delete is unlikely to develop. –DMartin 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if all of the !votes that weren't keep formed a coalition (excluding general comments), the "Keep" tally would be over three times greater than the coalition. It's around 39 to 12, but there are a few "Draftify" !votes and one !vote for "Rename". However, many !votes on this page lack clear reasoning or rationale, so in reality it would probably be a bit different. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close for now - It seems that consensus isn't developing to keep, nor to delete. At this point, I'm alright closing this as keep just to end the endless arguments, and we can re-assess this in, say, a week past the first (when the story broke) to see whether or not coverage truly dies as I believe it will. This has turned into the biggest train-wreck of an AfD I've seen, with all parties sure they're correct and consensus not being built in either direction. Departure– (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obvious bit of WP:NOTNEWS trivia. One could even argue that BLP1E is relevant as there wouldn't even be an article had the squirrel not been killed. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reliable sources before the squirrel was euthanized like USA Today and the South China Morning Post, along with some local news sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no argument that any BLP policy could possibly apply to non-human organisms. BLP pages are treated specially primarily for legal reasons and privacy reasons. BLP policies only apply to recently deceased humans in some cases, such as when there is contentious material. But no reading of any BLP policy could give one the impression that BLP1E applies to a non-contentious page about a recently deceased squirrel.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then.
    Let me quickly do a !vote tally with their arguments:
    • There are 39 !votes for Keep.
      • There are 4 !votes for Keep with either no policy reason, or arguing popularity is a keep reason.
      • There are 28 !votes arguing coverage is sufficient / notability is met.
    • There are 14 !votes to not keep.
      • Of these, 12 argue the subject is not notable.
    New !votes on both sides are coming in every hour or so.
    The item is currently at ITN's Recent Deaths section.
    The item may be the subject of off-wiki canvassing, although this is not confirmed (see reference below).
    I'm not sure if I've seen such a !vote with this much participation, yet this little consensus either way. I'll state right now that I'm not convinced the subject is anything more than sensationalism, but I'm sure there are more that do believe the subject meets notability. Either way, I'm hardly interested in defending my position any more, but my vote remains delete, or ideally, close for now so we can re-evaluate, hopefully with more consensus than this right here. Departure– (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if I've seen such a !vote with this much participation, yet this little consensus either way.

    This is nothing compared to WP:RBV22. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicking that link is the same as opening Pandora's box, as far as I'm concerned... holy hell. Well, if nothing else, this AfD is, judging by byte count, roughly 5,800% (5.8 times) larger than the article being deleted. There probably is an article with a worse situation than this but I don't know if I want to see it. Departure– (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    28 to 12 wouldn't even get you into the top 100 of no-consensus closes of popular debates, even if that was found as the result by the closer. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Don't forget to WP:CLOSEAFD, since this is a self-closure.
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to close it right now, as I'm waiting for more editor's input. Almost 60 participants so I'd err on the side of caution before throwing it all out. Departure– (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based purely on what I have seen of past coverage and that generated by the creature's death. Also noting extended interest caused by the dubious nature of the animal's removal and possible repercussions from that (not in a WP:CRYSTAL way either!). Ref (chew)(do) 21:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So can the article reflect that extended interest in reasonable detail from reliable sources? So far all we've got is a local representative (relevant) and Elon Musk (who is not, as far as I know, either a public official or an expert on animal welfare). GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to the "Reactions" section. That section shows reactions from individual people. If you look at the references, which I'm sure you did, you will find many reputable sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. There are plenty of reliable sources for the basic facts. That's not in question. What I'm looking for is well-sourced information about the wider reaction, other than just 'there was a wider reaction'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFK has also commented on it. It's getting attention from political figures, too. Look at this video, J.D. Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, has commented on it now. Besides, it's notable because of the GNG being met, even if it's not by much, before the incident, therefore breaking the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NSUSTAINED arguments that are widespread throughout this discussion. On Solana, "memecoins" about the squirrel are going viral. Regardless of that, the general notability guideline is still met. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure Solana isn't itself a reliable source. But I do see your point. RFK, Musk, Vance, and Solana... that's a certain sort of news profile, to be sure. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Solana was reliable; I was commenting on the sudden surge of coins on the platform. Bitcoin.com has reported on it; see https://dexscreener.com, where Peanut the squirrel has had a surge in the past 23 hrs. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability does not have to be established in a subject's lifetime. The instinct to delete this is obviously because of an unstated (but entirely good faith) bias that an article about a pet squirrel must be trivial or otherwise automatically not notable, even with the large amount of significant, exclusive coverage in reliable sources that lends itself to passing WP:GNG test. Merging to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would be awkward and not serve readers well at all. Steven Walling • talk 22:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an EXTREMELY important story about a pet followed and beloved by hundreds of thousands of people of every political and socioeconomic background. His story brings to light the necessity and opportunity for discussions on topics ranging from government overreach, Animal well-being, animal conservation, and the current laws surrounding all.
Additionally, deleting his story potentially portrays a bias in Wikipedia and may create doubt and mistrust in people seeking to use Wikipedia like a hardcopy encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazzymae4 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC) — Mazzymae4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep—of course the article should be kept, and continue to be improved. The article is about a notable social phenomenon where its not merely about the WP:ONEEVENT squirrel life/death, but about the broader meaning that seems to have become attached to the death of the squirrel at the hands of a really quite astounding multi-agency government action into the life/house of both the squirrel and the owners, and the multiple agencies (NYDEC, police/sherriff, state courts, et al) that led to the legal but questionable decision to take the animal, SWAT-like action on the house & occupants, etc. If the article needs to be renamed to cover the actual encyclopedically notable broader matter, then that rename can be addressed later. N2e (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://x.com/DegenerateNews/status/1852848413345227065
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peanut_(squirrel)&oldid=1255260422"