- Pedobear (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The internet meme Pedobear has now gained notability in reliable sources, finally. The Telegraph. Some others can be found in Google News! Time for either an article, or a redirect to List of internet memes with a short note there.--Heyya91919 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010
- See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 8#Pedobear → 4chan#/b. lifebaka++ 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep deleted. At the time of my writing this, the word "Pedobear" appears exactly three times in the articlespace in three separate articles:
- Until such time as there is a section, with sourced content, on a suitable article any standalone article or even redirect is, imo, not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- update If the section at 4chan remains stable then I would have no objection to a redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no significant discussion of the meme on WP at this time (that I can find), and this should change. I don't know which page is most appropriate for discussion of the meme, and that's not really up to DRV to decide. Given the new source, it seems clear that a redirect is necessary because a redlink is considerably worse than what we have now. Until we have a more detailed and sourced section on a page determined by general editorial process, I think the most appropriate redirect target is 4chan#Memes. So I suggest that a protected redirect to that anchor be created, and any future discussion about the target can be had on the talk page. ÷seresin 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I created Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pedobear for you to work on. When you have finished working on the draft, relist it here again linking to that page.--Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So just what level of notability/sourcing do we have in mind for a redirect to be created and 4chan to have a sub-section on this? Looking through the past RfDs, the prevailing delete rationale appears to have been "if it is unworthy of article inclusion, then it is unworthy of a redirect". What's the bar to meet here? Tarc (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where you get the impression that that is the prevailing consensus. In my experience (and opinion), it seems to me that a redirect is deemed worthy if it is a likely (or not unlikely) search term that doesn't have an article, has a logical target and there is coverage of the term on the target. In this case, I would be happy with a redirect when there is some coverage of the topic, whether at 4chan or elsewhere. Inclusion on the target article is per the consensus of editors there - as this does not include me, I can't offer specific advice. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that impression from the past RfDs, as I said above. The point is, a redirect to 4chan is dependent on there actually being a mention of it in the article, something that is routinely edit-warred over. Right now, there is 4chan#Pedobear a section, but it is hard to say how long it will last. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted nothing substantial enough is written about it anywhere that a redirect might make sense, and it's certainly not notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I note above, at the moment there is a section on it at 4chan. If that is stabilized and retained, would that change your opinion? Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation and point to 4chan#Pedobear, if that sub-section remains. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Appears that Pedobear recently got some more mainstream attention. A person did a photoshop job to put Pedobear into an image of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics mascots... and a Polish newspaper accidentally used that image on their front page.[1] As they say on FARK, hilarity ensued. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the same incident that lead to the coverage described in the nomination statement. Although you cite coverage in a different source, so you should probably make the people at the 4chan article aware of it if they aren't already. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I don't see any strong need to have anything other than a redirect to 4chan#Pedobear. There is barely enough to justify a separate article at this point. So allow recreation but would recommend merging. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The section at the 4chan article has been renamed, and so if there is a consensus for a redirect the target should be 4chan#"Pedobear". Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
