Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 14 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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.