Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Nyaumbe

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 merge to snake. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nyaumbe

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} oder {{subst:csp|username}}.

BLP1E - contested redirect. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I brought this article up at the BLP noticeboard to ask about it being a WP:BLP1E, it's unsurprising that I think it should be deleted. The article creator seems to think that the article is fine because there's a category for articles about animal attack victims, but it seems like all the articles in that cat are about notable people who have also been animal attack victims, not people who were attacked once and had articles written about that incident. Rnb (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ben Nyaumbe meets the criteria for inclusion for Notability Results 1 - 100 of about 75,200 for "Ben Nyaumbe". (0.70 seconds) Green Squares (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Note, user is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. But this is covered by WP:BLP1E, which says that even if an individual has enough coverage for the GNG, if they're only known for one event and are likely to remain a low profile person, they should not have their own article. Rnb (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selectively merge) To an appropriate article about snake attacks or animal attacks. I see there is an article on Snakebite by venomous snakes, but no article on attacks by constrictors on humans. Until such an article is created, this should be selectively merged to a new subsection on "Constrictor attacks on humans" in the article Snake in the section "Interactions with humans." Reuters and other news services thought the "man bites snake" incident was worth covering. It is unusual for a python to haul a grown man up a tree and attempt to eat him, especially while he calls the police on his cell phone. Edison (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyable article but I think Edison's idea is the right one -- merge appropriate details to Snake or Snakebite. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the author of the article it is well cited and there is a specific +cat for it Category:Animal attack victims Green Squares (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Note, user is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More material for the proposed section: An Ohio man was killed in 2006 by his pet 14 foot boa[1]. In 2002 a 10 foot python killed its owner in Denver [2]. A pet UK constrictor 8 feet long had the run of the house until it sought to eat the new baby [3] and authorities sought to ban them as pets. Here, pp 180-182 [4] are 19th century accounts of a boa's attempt to eat a zoo keeper. Here, pp 225-226 [5] is a 19th century account of a boa eating a human in the Phillipines. A modern book listing several killings of humans or attacks by anacondas and pythons is [6], pages 27-28. Seems enough material collectively for a subsection in the snake article, and is of interest because of the thousands of pythons now infesting Florida, with the population expected to increase exponentially[7]. Edison (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Support Edison's smerge recommendation - as a single article it has limited merit (beyond being darned humorous and an interesting read) - as part of a class of events, it is arguably significant. Williamborg (Bill) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Mergers Relevent content already is merged into Python sebae, where I tried to redirect this. Hipocrite (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the comment on the Smerge I would rather see the proposed subsection on attacks by constrictors on humans in Snake, since there is similarity in the attacks by pythons, boas, and anacondas. It seems less encyclopedic to split it up by species. Edison (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely WP:BLP1E. I saw this on History Channel. Interesting, but not notable beyond the single event itself. Merge if you have to, but no way should it stay a a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As relevant info is already on another article, delete and redirect to Python sebae. DreamGuy (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:Edison sensibly indicates, there are better alternatives than deletion. BLP1E is not relevant because the topic here is the notable attack, not a biography of the person attacked. That's just a matter of article-naming, which we address by move rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you actually read User:Edison's sensible comments, as a "Keep" vote is completely inconsistent with what he recommends. Renaming this article would not cut it, as it would still be about a single event that is not notable for an article on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The only question we are debating here is whether to delete the article. I think not and so I summarise this as Keep. This does not preclude further editing of the article in the ordinary way - move, split, merger or whatever. Note also that your proposal of delete and redirect is oxymoronic as the two are contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect is a perfectly valid result. There is no GFDL (much less CC-by-SA) violation in a delete and redirect. The content was in the snake article before the creation of this BLP violation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively per Edison. As it fails one event then keep isn't an option. If the material was taken from or already in target, then simply delete. Verbal chat 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere appropriate. BLP1E does apply, but this is a relative lot of coverage, even though of the "news of the weird" type. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to constriction, no independent notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have more than enough coverage to justify it's existance as coverage of a notable event - possibly the name should change to reflect that? Artw (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those arguing that the article should be renamed to indicate it's covering an event rather than a BLP so that it doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, I would respond that doing so would just move the article from that jurisdiction to that of WP:NTEMP, which says that it takes more than a burst of news reports for an event to be notable enough for its own article (and personally feeling that it would fall under the "tabloid journalism" clause.) Rnb (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No-one above has mentioned Wikinews, which one would expect to be the natural home of stories like this. But according to our article, ""So indistinct has the line between past and present become that Wikipedia has inadvertently all but strangled one of its sister projects, the three-year-old Wikinews... [Wikinews] has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day... On bigger stories there's just no point in competing with the ruthless purview of the encyclopedia.". So, it seems that, in practise, Wikipedia has swallowed Wikinews whole, just like a python, and Wikipedia routinely reports news stories on its main page. The claim that there is some clear division between encyclopedic content and notable current affairs seems untenable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear-cut BLP1E/notnews. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2009 (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.