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 speedy keep based on clear consensus that the nominator's deletion argument is invalid -- Samir 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie (elephant)[edit]

Cannot find established notability beyond two brief mentions on old copies of the New York Times. Google search turns up nothing relevant. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to brush up on your Google skills. I have suggested this before, and some have found it snarky. But I am assuming good faith, and suggesting taking an inexpensive course on Internet searching, they are offered at your local Community college, or at University of Phoenix Online. While I have only added two references, there are dozens including an obituary in the New York Times. I stopped writing the article when it was threatened with "speedy deletion" as not containing any claim to notability. Please, please, please, perform the minimal due diligence before you nominate, and type the name in Google, don't just look at the references I have added for the stub. The profile in the New York Times Magazine already listed is a full half page article on Hattie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind you to avoid blatant personal attacks. Inferring that I am stupid is not how you settle a dispute. In any case I've removed the copyvio text from this AfD as it serves no other purpose but to clog up this page. Occasional bi-yearly mentions of a zoo animal notability does not make. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are certifying that you searched and found nothing, there are only two conclusions: you didn't actually perform a search, or you did perform one and didn't find any of the ones that I found that establish notability. If it is the latter, an inexpensive course would help hone your skills, it wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, so please don't take it that way. You may also want to take a seminar on copyright law, you have deleted what is below three times. Anything published in 1922 or before is in the public domain. Any of these abstracts would fall under fair use, it is the same amount text Google uses under fair use. And please stop deleting the information I am adding to the page. You are never supposed to be deleting information written by others in AFDs. You are also in violation of 3RR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the site still exists and it has a copyright policy with no exceptions, then it is NOT in the public domain. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fair use - small snippets useful only for citation. Also, please stop with the arguing about each other's wikiquette and research skills here. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the article or the AfD? Because if you look back on the history of this page, you'll see that he copied pages worth of text straight from the NY Times site. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Material published 1922 or prior is in the public domain under US copyright law. You can read about it in Wikipedia. A copyright notice on the New York Times website does not reclaim an expired copyright. The New York Times recognizes this and publishes the full pdf file for those articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough press coverage to establish notability. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please don't argue here, unless you want to argue about deletion! But, in my opinion, the page needs to be nursed to health - in other words, it needs more content. I didn't know anything about the elephant before reading the article. Now that I've read the article, I know that she was described as quite intelligent. Why is that? Could she communicate with humans more than regular elephants? Any tricks? Mathematical skills? Please provide more good content if you can! Kotiwalo (talk)

Keep The added links confirm significant third party media coverage. Dream Focus 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obit in the NYT is often used as a clear indication of notability for AfDs of articles on humans. I think that should hold equally well, or maybe even more so, for animals, since full obituaries for them are so much rarer. As for who is winning the wiki-ability talent contest, the nominator for not knowing how to perform Google news searches or Norton for copying and pasting the contents of a search into this AfD rather than just posting a link, I take no position. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I could have done that, and will next time. Maybe I need a refresher course too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what terms the nominator used in the Google search, although I can see where a news search would have turned up mostly New York Times articles. My search of "central+park"&as_brr=0| Google books] indicates to me that, like the pandas in the Washington zoo now, this was a favorite of children a century ago. Part of the notoriety was that Hattie the Elephant was trained by teenager Hattie Snyder, whose father was the zookeeper. Anyway, a newspaper archive search shows that between 1904 and 1922, there were stories about Hattie the Elephant in newspapers nationwide. Notable then, notable now. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 25 July 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.