| Revision as of 10:25, 29 November 2009 editGuillaume2303 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers86,215 edits d← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:40, 14 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ''']''' (]) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} | |||
| :{{la|Crasher Squirrel}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Crasher Squirrel}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| :({{findsources|Crasher Squirrel}}) | :({{findsources|Crasher Squirrel}}) | ||
| Article on a single event, an event that spanned barely three weeks, from 2008-08-07 to 2008-08-28. The article subject is quite simply, a ] violation. I may be wrong, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage outside of this month. Popularity does not make something notable (I have many friends in ], that doesn't make me notable), and coverage in reliable sources, during the course of a single month, does not either. If say, it was still covered by news several months later, maybe even a year, it might be notable enough for inclusion, but not now. — ''']] |
Article on a single event, an event that spanned barely three weeks, from 2008-08-07 to 2008-08-28. The article subject is quite simply, a ] violation. I may be wrong, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage outside of this month. Popularity does not make something notable (I have many friends in ], that doesn't make me notable), and coverage in reliable sources, during the course of a single month, does not either. If say, it was still covered by news several months later, maybe even a year, it might be notable enough for inclusion, but not now. — ''']] ]''' 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' to ]. If it were one event, it would have been limited to its appearance in National Geographic. Given the meme that arose from it (and reported in major sources), it is more than a signal event and thus remains notable. If not, information should be merged to the Banff article, which already has a section under tourism that can accept the info. --] (]) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' to ]. If it were one event, it would have been limited to its appearance in National Geographic. Given the meme that arose from it (and reported in major sources), it is more than a signal event and thus remains notable. If not, information should be merged to the Banff article, which already has a section under tourism that can accept the info. --] (]) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Single trivial event with only brief, short-term media attention. Perhaps a one-line mention could be added to the ] article, which seems more logical than the tourism section in the Banff article. --] (]) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Single trivial event with only brief, short-term media attention. Perhaps a one-line mention could be added to the ] article, which seems more logical than the tourism section in the Banff article. --] (]) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| <hr style="width:50%;" /> | |||
| :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --> | |||
| *'''Strong Keep''' Well sourced and notable. Silly, sure, but deleting this doesn't improve the encyclopedia. It meets guidelines because of the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources it's received. If it becomes played out and doesn't maintain significant interest in society, it can always be revisited in the future. ] (]) 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' The subject is a celebrity. Misplaced Pages should not discriminate against non-human celebrities. ] (]) 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Notability has been established. ]] 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Even though most of the coverage happened during the same period as the event, I do believe that the subject is still notable due to the mass of coverage and attention this event has received, even if over a short period of time. True, popularity doesn't define notability on its own, but it does influence how notable an article's subject is ''in addition'' when there are reliable sources available. Considering that I think that the subject is notable, I also do not believe that this is a violation of ], as this is a unique instance of a rare event that happened to receive a lot of news attention, which spread as a meme across the 'net. If not keep, I also like the idea of merging much of the info into ]. <b>~]]</b> <small>] ]</small> 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Plenty of major news coverage at the time, and it appears the Banff park board has given the story immortality by making the squirrel their "mascot". Not to mention the web application that allows people to insert the "crasher squirrel" into their own photos. --] (]) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, 14 April 2022
- 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. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Crasher Squirrel
- Crasher Squirrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on a single event, an event that spanned barely three weeks, from 2008-08-07 to 2008-08-28. The article subject is quite simply, a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I may be wrong, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage outside of this month. Popularity does not make something notable (I have many friends in Facebook, that doesn't make me notable), and coverage in reliable sources, during the course of a single month, does not either. If say, it was still covered by news several months later, maybe even a year, it might be notable enough for inclusion, but not now. — Dædαlus 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to Banff National Park. If it were one event, it would have been limited to its appearance in National Geographic. Given the meme that arose from it (and reported in major sources), it is more than a signal event and thus remains notable. If not, information should be merged to the Banff article, which already has a section under tourism that can accept the info. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Single trivial event with only brief, short-term media attention. Perhaps a one-line mention could be added to the internet meme article, which seems more logical than the tourism section in the Banff article. --Crusio (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Well sourced and notable. Silly, sure, but deleting this doesn't improve the encyclopedia. It meets guidelines because of the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources it's received. If it becomes played out and doesn't maintain significant interest in society, it can always be revisited in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is a celebrity. Misplaced Pages should not discriminate against non-human celebrities. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notability has been established. Kyle1278 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Even though most of the coverage happened during the same period as the event, I do believe that the subject is still notable due to the mass of coverage and attention this event has received, even if over a short period of time. True, popularity doesn't define notability on its own, but it does influence how notable an article's subject is in addition when there are reliable sources available. Considering that I think that the subject is notable, I also do not believe that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as this is a unique instance of a rare event that happened to receive a lot of news attention, which spread as a meme across the 'net. If not keep, I also like the idea of merging much of the info into Banff National Park. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of major news coverage at the time, and it appears the Banff park board has given the story immortality by making the squirrel their "mascot". Not to mention the web application that allows people to insert the "crasher squirrel" into their own photos. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie
- 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.