Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Svalbard Polar Bear Attack


 * 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   no consensus. Normally I may have gone for a relist, but since the primary point of contention here is lasting notability it seems like a good idea to just close this and re-visit the issue later when the lasting impact of this event will be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Svalbard Polar Bear Attack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NEWSEVENT; while there was a spur of news hits about the attack immediately afterwards, there is no coverage beyond a few days, per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Polar bear attacks are common in Svalbard and there is nothing warranting an article about this particular one. Arsenikk (talk)  15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Even at this moment this is still getting continued coverage on international news sites. The event is also notable in the reviews and knock on effect it is having on such expeditions.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2011/08/28/Bear_attack_survivor_relives_ordeal_655172.html is just one example
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  — Arsenikk  (talk)  15:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The event appears to be just routine coverage and does not appear to have any lasting significance. If at some point in the future the event is determined to have lasting significance I could see re-creating the article, but such significance either does not exist or has not been noted in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is false as there is current and continuing coverage such as this. Warden (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. News. Tragic for sure, but can't have a lasting impact. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course - what a daft nomination  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the nomination is not entirely correct, but the article should be deleted nonetheless as it does not have lasting impact. Or do you believe it does? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete sad, but no need for a page here. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like a news article more than anything else. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge a sentence or two into Polar bear, which mentions fatal polar bear attacks. Per WP:NOTNEWS, a stand-alone article is not appropriate. Reyk  YO!  20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This has lasting effects because there are policy changes to prevent it from happening again.   D r e a m Focus  02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Polar bear as per Reyk. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Either merge or generalize title / content to cover polar bear attacks more broadly, including prevention policies (as is started within the article).FeatherPluma (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.