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 Delete/Userify.. Consensus is to delete. As the creator has expressed a desire to have the page userified, I have done so; redirecting the original location and/or creating Earless rabbit can be done through the usual channels. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til (rabbit)

[edit]

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

There was a rabbit without any ears. A cameraman stepped on it and the poor animal died. It will now be stuffed and exhibited. Sources confirm this happened. PRODded with reason "Not notable. Just a minor single event". DePRODded without explanation. However, PROD reason still stands, and WP is not a newspaper. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned that this might happen. A bit was added to Keinohrhasen. Would Earless rabbit or German celebrity animals be ok? CallawayRox (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit added to Keinohrhasen seems fine to me and completely sufficient to cover this nonevent. An article on earless rabbits in general would also be fine and this animal could be a footnote in such an article, too. Whether there is enough material for an article on "German celebrity animals" I don't know, but if there are sources, go ahead! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it. Basically all the Til sources talked about Knut (polar bear) and how celebrity animals are big in Germany. CallawayRox (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some individual animal articles out there which do survive AfD, but honestly they aren't that useful unless you are trying to remember a particular incident. One such article was morphed into the much-celebrated List of animals with fraudulent diplomas, which is well sourced and a good compilation. I love the idea of an earless rabbit article (which can include mentions of notable earless rabbits), assuming we can source it well. I wouldn't go with German celebrity animals, because I see news stories out there about earless rabbits from other countries too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating this one for deletion, I had a look at some of those individual-animal articles and, frankly, they all looked quite more notable than this one. Not hugely perhaps (like the two about rabbits on websites collecting money for not eating them), but they looked like having received more sustained coverage than is the case here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was 1 in Japan and 3 in China after Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. CallawayRox (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; celebrity is not notability. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I work on Earless rabbit? I don't want to get yelled at. CallawayRox (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on an article without worrying about anyone else's interference you can always start it off on a user subpage. For example, you could work on User:CallawayRox/Earless rabbit until you felt it was of a high enough quality to be moved into the main encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied the article. CallawayRox (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that because we can't redirect from mainspace into userspace, I'm going to have to mark Til (rabbit) for deletion. This will not prevent you moving the article back into mainspace when you choose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. An article under discussion at AfD should not be blanked or removed. The proper procedure is to wait until the AfD closes and then, if appropriate, to userfy the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to work in peace? CallawayRox (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste into a new userspace article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution. Using other people's contribution without attribution is copyright infringement. A surprising number of people think that somehow copyright infringement doesn't count if it's from another Wikipedia page, but that is not so. Attribution is normally in the editing history, but that is lost if you copy and paste. In this case, almost everything is from one person, but not all. Really, it would be better to either (1) edit the existing article (2) wait until the AfD is over or (3) write a new article from scratch, so that it doesn't include anyone else's edits. Also, I think it is only fair to warn you that, before putting a significant amount of work into the new article, you should decide whether the subject really does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It would be a pity to put in a lot of work, only to see both articles deleted one after the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will just wait since you won't let me do any work. CallawayRox (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The trouble with that suggestion is that you will have to be careful about including any other editor's contribution without attribution." Maybe so, but it happens all the time beyond the notice of almost everyone. AfD shouldn't delay people's desire to create, if they wish to do so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable bunny/event. Slow news day. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. Might be worth a line in some rabbit-related article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 28 March 2012 (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.