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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Animal Preservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seriously? A couple of namechecks that make it clear the Society is a tiny and bonkers outfit? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just did some Google searches, and while the seriousness of this organisation is in doubt, it seems to be a body that has been reported on in the media, and has the support of some high profile people. Articles from notable newspapers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm a little worried that there is a depth of coverage here. This looks like it was launched fairly recently, in September 2013. We have to be careful about this, as sometimes things can get a brief spurt of coverage over the period of say, a week or a month, but not really show any in-depth coverage, sort of how you'll have dozens upon dozens of articles about a woman who dresses herself up to look like Barbie, has a 15 inch waist, or a monkey wearing a jacket at IKEA. You can sometimes show notability with just a month's coverage and we have a week to do it with, so it could still pass notability guidelines. A possible solution is to look to see if the company's founder has notability enough to merit an article. We could include this in an article about him and redirect there. If a major corporation that already has an article is sponsoring or has taken charge of it, we could create a subsection in their article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the creator's article might be the way to go. From what I can see, he's written quite a few things and has been a presenter on some TV series such as Inside Nature's Giants and was a voice on Plasmo. Tokyogirl79
• You made me go look up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikea Monkey, I wish there was a wikipedia for ephemeral stories like that so I could look them up when, inevitably, people discuss them many years later despite everyone's claims that no one would remember it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The online poll for ugliest animal got an insane amount of media coverage around the world, but that could still be viewed as a single event without any consequences. But there's other coverage, e.g. the articles in the Daily Telegraph, Brighton Argus, and Guru Magazine (I'm not totally sure Guru is a independent/reliable source; it's funded by the Wellcome Trust, a charity which promotes various good causes). Regarding creating an article on Simon Watt, he on his own has not received more coverage than this event (although there is e.g. interviews with New Scientist and The Naked Scientists[1], it's mainly about the ugly animal campaign). It's a little tricky to judge what notability criteria to apply, because this isn't an organisation, it's really a theatrical event that has been staged several times, and an associated internet thing (the widely-reported poll). I wondered about merging this to an article on criticisms of conservationism, but could not find anything relevant. In the absence of a suitable alternative, I suggest keeping, although if people can find sufficient material for an article on Simon Watt that would be a valid way to go. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while Tokyogirl79 says it started in September 2013, the first event was held in October 2012 and there's press from Feb/March 2013. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has garnered sufficient coverage to pass for notability, and after the success they have had we will hear more. This may seem bonkers to the nom, but there is a serious intent. The title will be a conscious reference to the emphasis in most environmental campaigns and the media on 'charismatic megafauna' like elephants and whales. Biologists have been arguing for years that this distorts public understanding of environmental conservation needs and funding. I do not think it is a criticism of conservation efforts as such, because I doubt whether many who have been engaged with that at the scientific level would take issue with it. It is more about trying to get the wider message across and it has a deliberate and express educational purpose, with talks to schools. It presumably intends to do for biology what Horrible Histories has done for history amongst children, by making it fun. --AJHingston (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the original author of the piece, I am not here to vote on it or defend it so much as to see what I can add to the conversation regarding the proposal for its deletion (okay, and defend it just a little). I am a Wikipedia deletionist myself, and at first glance would have readily nominated an article such as this. However, after finding significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources, I figured I had covered my bases (The Guardian is a pretty significant and reliable source, yes?). The organization's (?) web site is rather sparse on details about what it really does or what its history is, but I have spoken by email with Mr. Watts and he has agreed to try to augment the site in these respects— Mr. Watts, of course, is not a reliable third party source of information, but any information coming from him would not be used to establish a claim of notability anyway. I believe the threshold of notability has already been reached, which is why I created the article and why I believe that Wikipedia should have such an article. If deleted now, I suspect it will be recreated soon by someone else on an even stronger notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the fact that the article has been viewed more than 4,000 times since its creation just over a month ago, a pretty good indicator of the subject's notability all on its own. KDS4444^Talk 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- As far as I can see from reading the article this is miscategorised as an organisation, when it is in fact a comedy performance. It thus appears in theatrical reviews, not conservation magazines. Whether or not it is a notable performance, I am not qulified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually heard about it from BBC Wildlife magazine, which is about wildlife, not theatre. But like you, I'm not qualified to judge of this is notable. –anemoneprojectors– 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Compared to other notable comedy skits/bits I am not seeing the significiant claim for notability. Yes it may be the flash in the pan for a week while the internet's attention span is on it, but does not seem to have the enduring notability necessary to transition into true notability. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Response There is evidence here that the Society has been around and doing performances since October 21 of 2012 (almost exactly a year ago). Can you give me a sense of how many years would be necessary to make a claim of notability more dependable/ reliable? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 08:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- As I said above, this is a comedy performance, not a society. The question is whehter the show is notable: I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject matter is clearly notable - it has been reported in both scientific and mainstream press and online, and is of broad general public interest internationally (it touches on an issue of conservation priority as well hence the scientific interest). In any case, even if it were a 'flash in the pan' (which it doesn't appear to be given its longevity over a year), that doesn't reduce it's notability - a murder or significant accident is also a notable 'flash in the pan'. Any difficultly in defining whether this issue should be listed as a) an event, b) cultural, c) an organisation, d) under the organisation's creator; or e) as an issue, is semantics - important - but should not cause an otherwise notable issue be deleted.Amarantus (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2013 (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.