Talk:Crasher Squirrel

Seriously?
This subject meets the requirements for an article? Seriously. Because I spend *a lot* of time on the Web and I can dig up at least 100 similar tales of silliness. COME ON! Proxy User (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can demonstrate notability through reliable sources and verifiability, then maybe those 100 similar tales of silliness merit consideration for their own articles. 204.128.192.3 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it has gotten multiple independent examples of mainstream news media coverage, and that very low bar means we have lots of articles on fluff like this. In a year or so it'll just be completely insignificant trivia wasting space here, but the way things are set up here means there's likely very little that can be done about it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "notability through reliable sources" eh? Like the AP? Yes, I do believe I can come up with at least 100 "independent examples of mainstream news media coverage" of dumb-assed BS like this. Proxy User (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course this is completely non-notable. But the way these things usually go, lots of people are attracted here by its current little wave of news (hey, that's good, it means nothing too serious is currently happening in the world...) and if you try to AfD it now, dozens of people will defend the cute critter. Come back in three weeks (I don't think you'll have to wait a year for that) and nobody will hardly remember and it can be dealt with (AfD, I mean) as it should. --Crusio (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article clearly meets our notability guidelines - even if you believe it is a meme; it has secondary coverage from multiple national reliable sources. This is not to say that this is the end point of the conversation, however.
 * First, I did create this after discovering the number of articles about it after someone added the entry to the List of internet phenomena. Note that this list has a high level of requirement to be part of it. So those that think they can create articles about any old internet meme are going to find the difficulty in showing sources as required by that list or through notability. This is one of the few that clearly pass it *and* that there is more to talk about than just what the meme is (there's a history of this).
 * However, it is worthwhile to point out how "Know Your Meme" considers that this meme was one that was actually created by the media before it really became a meme, and it could be that this meme will suddenly disappear in a few months. Should it be the case that not much more can be added from this, then one possibility is to merge this with the Banff National Park article (who seems to be gaining the most benefit from it). However, we can't tell either way. In the present, a well-sourced article on the topic does not hurt anything. --M ASEM  (t) 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What's with the notability tag? If editors think the article is inherently non-notable, then they must nominate it for deletion. But there are plenty of reliable sources there as it is, so that criterion is met. I'll remove it. Lampman (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are reliable secondary sources and that information could be part of an article about media hypes, Banff National Park, squirrels, or anything like that. An independent article on this "event" is more than silly. Awaiting the time that this will be possible, you are right that meanwhile this doesn't do any harm, I have indeed seen far worse when similar things like this happened in the past. --Crusio (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether editors think a topic is silly or not is not a Notability issue. Notability is strictly an issue of whether reliable sources have taken sufficient notice of the subject to create an article. Many editors use "notability" as a proxy for "I don't like it", which is a misuse of that policy. As silly as this subjct may seem to some, it has received widespread and substantial coverage in the media, including, for example, the Today (NBC program). Even after the sensation has passed from recent memory, the sources remain, so notability is permanent. Dhaluza (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reason we don't have an article on Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction is that despite plenty sources, the event is not notable enough for a stand-alone article and it is covered in the articles on Janet Jackson and wardrobe malfunction. --Crusio (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. --M ASEM (t) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to nominate it for deletion, and the criteria are not met. There is more than adequate proof that editors here believe the topic to be nonnotable, so you as an individual cannot just declare it notable and ignore everyone else. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to miss my point. The tag says "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources", but the argument here has been that the article is inherently non-notable, regardless of how many notable sources there are. I'm not saying you can't tag the article, but you're gonna have to find a tag that says "Sorry, you can add as many reliable sources as you like to this article, but some of us will still think it's non-notable." The current tag is just misleading; ten "reliable, secondary sources" are not enough? What about twenty? A hundred, would that make you happy? Putting up a tag with a requests that cannot be met is simply Kafkaesque. Lampman (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I view this article, my computer detects a Trojan called 'Crasher'. It happens as soon as the page loads, everytime this one page loads and ONLY then. I don't even know how that's possible but someone with hacking skills needs to look into this...Shane.Bell (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed tags
I've removed tags indicating that the article is an orphan (it isn't - several articles now link to it) and question the notability (notability has been established by multiple reliable sources). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crasher Squirrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903122815/http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/squirrel-portrait-banff-pod.html to http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/squirrel-portrait-banff-pod.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)