| Revision as of 09:10, 6 December 2009 editChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:14, 6 December 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits tweakNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| <hr style="width:50%;" /> | <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 -->{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Articles for deletion|]|}} | :<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 -->{{#ifeq:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Articles for deletion|]|}} | ||
| '''Strong Keep''' |
'''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 play out and doesn't maintain interest, it can always be revisited in the future. ] (]) 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:14, 6 December 2009
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 play out and doesn't maintain interest, it can always be revisited in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories: