Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man or bear

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Man or bear}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Man or bear}})

Notability; Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme, and not every Twitter drama or meme can have its own Wikipedia page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• :See WP:SUSTAINED. All the media articles are from within a timespan of a few weeks or months. Nobody's going to remember this meme a year from now. Hell, people barely remember it already. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:GNG clearly isn't a concern here considering how much sourcing is available, and we can't exactly predict whether the meme will remain popular or not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• :I don't think we have to predict much; almost all the sources are from late April to early May. The meme's already long since died. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The article, with all of its references, makes it abundantly apparent that the subject was a flash-in-the-pan viral meme without any significance beyond how many people heard about it and talked about it for about a month or two. This wasn't a scientific study performed by people looking to answer a question, it was the results of a content farm hunting for clips to post online. Not to mention the article has a good number of glaring issues, from the completely unnecessary "illustration" made from image cutouts to the whole section on "Scientific Validity" focusing on a seemingly relevant statistic rather than any insight into the methodology (which, ironically, is found in a previous section, but still comes from purely journalistic commentary). Kodiak42 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Notability is not temporary. {{tpq|Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage}}. This is not a biography where WP:BIO1E might apply, nor is any of the coverage "routine" (where WP:NOTNEWS might apply). It is clear that {{tpq|the outside world has already "taken notice of it"}} and it is thus a notable topic. C F A 💬 03:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this isn't some flash in the pan meme, it's something that's been covered extensively by several reputable publications. Most memes are never notable and don't ever meet GNG, while this subject clearly does. I disagree strongly with Closed Limelike Curve's argument that no one will remember this a year from now given that plenty of coverage talks about this meme's wider context with regards to sexism and everyday culture. [https://www.cbc.ca/1.7199173][https://theconversation.com/why-women-would-prefer-to-be-alone-in-the-woods-with-a-bear-than-a-man-229140][https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/shows/top-stories/blog/rcna151081] There are easily many more sources out there, many of which are already in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:Delete I struggle to imagine I'm on an encyclopaedia reading the pabulum in this article, half of it feels like a coatrack too. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Traumnovelle}} Do you have a policy based argument for deletion instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::They cited WP:COATRACK, but I don’t see how that essay applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::As it stands the article is unencyclopaedic and I do not see any source that could improve that. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Unencyclopedic how? It's a studied phenomenon/event. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::If there are studies they are not presented in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::By "studied", I don't mean the formal way. There are many news sources cited that analyzes the phenomenon. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

::Is there even an argument for deletion here? The topic is notable. There is no policy that supports its deletion beyond personal opinion. I think you should take a look at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC... C F A 💬 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a solid consensus. Remember, articles are not assessed on whether or not an individual editors sees their value but whether reliable sources establish that this is a notable subject. I'm sure we all know of articles whose value is doubtful but it's the sources and policies, not our opinions, that matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article cites multiple reliable sources which are primarily about the topic. McYeee (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per CFA and WP:SBST. Article quoting the National Review helps neutrality, and Le Monde was still discussing it 3 months after the fact. The very divisiveness of this topic is why it has received so much notice in the first place. StonyBrook _babble 23:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.