Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romulus (donkey)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus (donkey)

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

Why should the donkey that happens at the moment to be the tallest donkey in the world be notable? The information comes from Guiness Book of World Records, and that's where it belongs. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Oppose~~: The record itself implies notability. Google provides many hits, multiple stories in neutral, third-party sources including the Dallas Morning News, and NBC, FOX and CBS News affiliates. Certainly if we have articles on Sri Lankan cricket players and Lawnchair Larry, the world's largest donkey measures up comfortably. If he is dethroned, we could donsider delisting him then, but for now, seems fine. Not sure if there is list or article on record holding animals, if so, a merge could be proposed, but I vote keep. I might also note that Thumbelina (horse) has been happily stabled, unmolested by AfDs, on wikipedia since 2006. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ours is not to reason why". We follow the guidance of external sources per the general notability guideline which this impressive specimen seems to pass. Andrew (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. Substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2014 (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.