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. The consensus seems to be keep. I'm not entirely sure I agree, but the consensus is clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedals the Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cute and sad story but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I don't think we'll see much lasting coverage. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting nomination. Contrary to my expectations, it appears that the story does have legs. (bad pun fully intended) Pichpich (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Strangely, this received far more significant media coverage than I expected. The Washington Post dedicated substantial coverage in June, as did the New York Times in August. ABC has covered his death (as have any number of New Jersey media outlets). Looking further back, NJ.com reported back in 2015 on the responses of various NJ and NY government agencies as this bear became a topic of public interest. This article looks promising as well, but is paywalled. I'm not entirely persuaded that all of this demonstrates actual notability rather than (a year of) slow-news-day fill, but there are certainly more and better sources for this bear than for a lot of topics I see at AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is just an indiscriminate collection of news reports. Bear sighted, apparently named, walks on rear paws, gets killed during hunting season, end of story. Otr500 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely NOT the "end of the story", as the bear's death has provided the impetus for Democrats in the New Jersey Senate to propose a anti-hunting "Pedals law".[1]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources, sustained coverage since 2014[2][3][4], with resulting societal impact and debates[5]. Sourcing on current stub needs to be updated, of course, and there are lots of good legit news reporting and rs commentary to do so with. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recentism and NOTNEWS, or consider moving to Killing of Pedals the bear (per Harambe and Cecil the lion) if it looks like there is still ongoing coverage when the AfD is coming up for closure (October 21). This animal wasn't notable in life. He's in the news now because he's dead. If there's some ongoing controversy about his death, maybe there will be something worth keeping. Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note changing my vote to Strong Keep because of reporting on Pedal's Law, an anti-bear hunting law now under discussion in the NJ senate.[6][7] Clear keep, passes NOTNEWS due to significant coverage of the societal impact surrounding this animal. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've neutrally pinged the 3 wikiprojects listed on Talk:Pedals (bear), to help build consensus. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep NOTNEWS and Recentism do not apply because there has been significant coverage since 2014 [8] [9] [10]. This story is also bigger than simply the bear itself, it has led to a bill in the New Jersey Senate requiring the state to look for non-lethal methods to control the black bear population [11]. It should also be noted that the article has been rewritten from scratch since this AFD was created.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Pedals is at least as notable as Harambe the gorilla (especially in New Jersey), and the article notes that an anti-bear hunting bill has been introduced in the state legislature in response to Pedals' killing. I think that's more than enough reason to keep the article. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete If this is still remembered 5 years from now, on its own then maybe the article deserves to be reinstated. Right now, it' just regurgitated news used for coatracking. Anmccaff (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a policy-based reason for your vote. We don't have to wait five years to create articles that have already had significant coverage in reliable independent sources.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Wiki Newspeak would be nicely covered by NOTNEWS and Recentism, with a little WP:COAT thrown in, although thankfully much of the last is being edited out. Anmccaff (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the simple basis of this was a news story about a bear and its 2 legs and the expected news attention it had, there's nothing else apart from that and then nothing else to suggest this article could be any better, therefore it's best included and mentioned at another article, one perhaps of compiled events such as these. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else apart from the bill introduced in the New Jersey Senate to end hunting as a direct result of the death?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed bill is far from actual enacted legislation. I would suggest not gazing into that WP:CRYSTALBALL -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Named animal very widely covered by major news outlets. Coverage in news extends before death. Note the wide coverage when Google News search is limited to results before September 30, 2016. They're even naming a law after it. Clearly passes GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as affecting legislation, and nom has retracted deletion bid--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please close as nom has retracted deletion bid--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that matter? It's not as though it were a personal favor. Anmccaff (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:SKCRIT#1, if other editors have expressed a desire to delete, the discussion can't be closed just because the nominator withdrew. clpo13_(talk) 06:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG by the looks of it, especially as it has brought about changes in legislation. I think there's enough here to warrant an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATION, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia of Sensationalist News. To those who will say that the subject was notable before being shot, well, this project is not called Cuteness-pedia either. It should also be noted that since being nominated for deletion this article has been extensively revised and rewritten (to the point of having its title moved!) giving readers who are then directed to this page a false inflated sense of the article's importance. Although there is unfortunately no policy that prohibits such behavior, I would say that it is bad form for inclusionists to make such radical revisions to nominated articles to sway discussion towards keep before a consensus has been reached through the AfD process. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that once an AfD has been started, no improvements should be allowed to be made to that article? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Millionsandbillions: My my, that is a unique perspective you have. I've never seen an argument like you've raised. Perhaps you'd like to write an essay to further expand on your ideas? If you really strongly believe what you say, your next step is to BE BOLD and edit Template:Article for deletion/dated to remove the text "Feel free to edit the article" and replace it with wording you find more appropriate. If your change is reverted, then you can make your case on Template talk:Article for deletion/dated. I look forward to the discussion. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal philosophy regarding wiki-deletions is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. I was simply pointing out to readers who were ignorant of the article's previous state and who may be swayed toward keeping the article that the reason for the article's current state is due to those who have an agenda of saving it from deletion. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just IDLI trying to be justified with shortcuts. General notability has been established in the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, those who have argued for deletion in this discussion have used substantial and policy based arguments, while those who have argued for inclusion have used WP:ILIKEIT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The exact opposite is the case. All those who want to delete have come up with is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism, neither of which apply here, and those who want to keep have pointed out that it easily passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just sensationalist yellow journalism and thus fails WP:GNG. As WP:SENSATION says "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting." This article is of no lasting importance so to say that neither WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM apply is wrong. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the bear, not his death. WP:SENSATION applies to the latter. We've provided sources about the bear from 2014 and he's been in the news rather steadily since then. Not remotely yellow journalism. This bear is notable in the same way Grumpy Cat is, though not as famous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the bear alone it then fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The fame of Grumpy Cat is incomparable to the fame of this bear. Grumpy Cat is an American cultural icon with absurd amounts of merchandise whereas Pedals is at most a minor internet sensation, which almost anyone or, indeed, anything can be. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - There are massive concerns regarding WP:BLP issues if the article is kept. WP:NPF states that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." The hunter's personal safety has to be taken into account. If the name of the hunter is ever added to the article people who are upset about the hunt could go to this article to learn their name and they might be subjected to the same sort of abuse as that of the hunter involved in the hunt of Cecil the Lion. Due to the BLP violations that will occur if the article is kept the only sensible course of action is to delete. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any article about or referencing living people could attract BLP violations. We should just go ahead and delete Wikipedia to be safe. clpo13_(talk) 19:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every Wikipedia article involving living people has the capacity to cause potential harm as this one does. Consideration should be given to the hunter's personal safety. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the hunter who has not been named in the article or even publicly identified? We do not delete articles based on future, purely hypothetical BLP violations.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The BLP violations are not "future" or "purely hypothetical." This article was started as an WP:ATTACKPAGE that claimed that the hunter was a "brutal murderer" and a "coward." As WP:NOTSCANDAL says "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Go submit a REVDEL request if you think the first edit was a significant BLP violation. (Original version). The creator of the article used editorialization and clearly had a strong POV when they said Pedals was "brutally murdered" which is not the same as calling the hunter a brutal murderer but the "coward" part was sourced and attributed to an individual's opinion. Both have since been removed since they were inappropriate. This is typical of a new editor (which the user clearly is). But to twist this to be an "attack page" is ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original version also included speculation the hunter was specifically hunting the bear for years and cast aspersions om his sporting ability; it was clearly an attack page targeted at the hunter. The "coward" part may have been sourced but sourced material can still be defamatory. The "brutally murdered" material was especially egregious as the subject is a non-sentient animal incapable of being murdered. That the editor is new is immaterial as new editors should strive to become intimately familiar with policy and ignorance of policy is not an excuse. -- Millionsandbillions (talk)

Strong Keep - Just that he walked on two legs on a regular basis makes him notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterknighted (talk • contribs)

Keep There was an article about Pedals the Bear in the New York Times and USA Today-that makes him notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that makes him news, and recent news at that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFD, even reliable sources such as the New York Times can succumb to sensationalism. An encyclopedia, if it is to be considered a serious endeavor, must have a higher level of editorial discretion than a newspaper looking to make a buck. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the determination of what is "sensational" is inherently about POV. Clearly editors disagree with you here. @Anmccaff: 2014 isn't "recent". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....but 2016 is, very much so, and that was when the article was created, in reaction to a recent event. Let's not foget how this started; it's very hard not to see a certain degree of sensationalism there. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, the news-stories about this bear, even the ones from 2014, are clearly tabloid journalism and there is nothing "inherently POV" about pointing that out. Also, how is 2014 not recent, that is only two years ago and the article was only created after the bear was hunted. The article is clearly a result of WP:RECENTISM. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalism is in the eye of the beholder. I see an environmentalism issue here similar to Cecil the Lion. And for the life a wild disabled animal, 2014 isn't recent. This isn't the latest cute water skiing squirrel or some other nonsense meme. This is a local icon whose life resulted in petitions and whose death has prompted legislation. To suggest it's not notable seems absurd. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.