Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rally Squirrel


 * 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. As astonishing as it is to see DGG !voting to delete (I just finished my drink), there is no consensus here and the discussion suggests that more development is needed to determine the status of the article. This AFD should be taken into account in future nominations, but does not prejudice re-nomination at any time. causa sui (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rally Squirrel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Squirrels ran onto the field in consecutive games at a baseball field, and looking for a little light news/sports coverage, it was covered along with the games. However, there is nothing to indicate this is at all notable beyond the immediate humor that it provided. The squirrels have not been adopted as a mascot or anything of the like and it appears to have been a natural occurrence (e.g. not scripted) so, for the moment, this appears to have the same relevance and notability as a fan running onto the field. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete articles like this one lessen my faith in Wikipedia. This article, which is about arcane trivia of no lasting value and covered as a pure anecdote to the actually notable events of the games themselves, is 1/3rd longer than the article on Nobel peace prize winner and human rights activist Tawakel Karman.--TM 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny and basically harmless, but sadly, probably not notable enough for an article. Perhaps it might merit a mention on the 2011 National League Division Series article instead? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no prejudice towards userfication either, this could certainly gain a lasting effect as the postseason wears on. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge or Userify for now. I am with Mark on both those options.  For the moment, it is pretty insignificant on its own; once the media stories stop, all this is is a Cardinals fandom meme.  If the meme shows some longevity, I think then it would be notable enough to have its own article.  --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Wknight94 talk 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Userify or Merge since I foresee this potentially going beyond the Rally Monkey if the Cardinals win against the Phillies. The article's heavily sourced and I don't want editors to spend hours creating the article again. Hours to create, one minute to destroy at AFD. I've notified the article's author and main contributor since you decided it'd be best not to. The claim that it has the same notability as a fan running on the field is misleading. There's 171 news articles from reliable sources on google news, many of which are dedicated articles to the squirrel and not just some passing mention as you insist. Fox News St. Louis also covered his appearance as well as a song dedicated to the squirrel. That's FAR from being the same as a fan running onto the field. I still think this should be userified for now, but don't play this down with completely disproportional comparisons.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further writeup from the New York Times  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never claimed this wasn't in the news, but as someone else above said, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. What indication is there that is is going to be notable beyond next week? By comparison, not every meme on the Internet that gains in popularity has its own article. This is merely a cutesy occurrence in a baseball game, a "flavor of the week". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * St. Louis just completed their colossal upset of Philadelphia. Another squirrel caused problems on the field prior to Game 5 in Philly. If this article is deleted, it must be userfied and not completely destroyed considering the length of the article and the reliable sources cited because the squirrel's popularity and news coverage will increase, much like the rally monkey if not even moreso.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 03:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think this can be covered in the article on the series.... the squirrel has no lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a Merge as well, except people below are arguing that everything should be deleted. Many players and managers are very superstitious, they even celebrated with a stuffed animal squirrel after Game 5. They put stock in the rally squirrel, so it at least deserves one paragraph mention on the NLDS article. Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone added a one-line mention to Busch Stadium, which I copyedited. At this point (no speculation about greater future notability), any other article should IMO only be a one-line mention at best as well.  Anyone that feels inclined should do this outside of this AfD, as I can only imagine piecemeal merging to multiple articles as opposed to moving the content en masse to a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Lots of good sources. Don't be elitist. CallawayRox (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and not make unfounded accusations against other editors. Trusilver  19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted above, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. I don't see any problem with userfying the article for the possibility of future notability, as Vodello noted above. Trusilver  19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak Keep. I keep reading this article and the associated references and I guess I DO see that there is some kind of bizarre phenomenon forming over this thing that has an acceptable level of notability. I also accept that my bias against a stadium full of half-wits chanting "Let's go, squirrel!" isn't an acceptable reason to delete it either.  Trusilver  16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?!? "a stadium full of half-wits"? I believe that remark is totally uncalled for and insulting to St. Louis Cardinals fans. You owe those of us in Cardinal Nation an apology IMHO.Sector001 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He was actually referring to events of September 2007 at Yankee Stadium. As a Red Sox fan, I'd normally be willing to accept the "half-wits" description in this case -- except that the New York Times, a reliable source, indicated that the event set off a heated discussion in the crowd over the relative merits of the 13-Century Poetic Edda vs. Snorri Sturluson's later Prose Edda, with some supporting Rudolf Simek's view that the squirrel probably only represented an embellishing detail to the mythological picture of the world-ash in Grímnismál, while others (probably Mets fans, so what can you expect) refuting this with an assertion that squirrel's ceaseless gnawing represents a continual destruction and re-growth cycle, symbolizing ever-changing existence. Hardly the work of half-wits, although I understand a couple of drunken fistfights over the matter broke out in the stands. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, thanks for placing this in proper context, and helping us see that this is about so much more than a squirrel, or St. Louis, or baseball.... First Light (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Userify Too early to tell if this has any lasting WP:EFFECT. The mention of other squirrels in baseball games might be WP:MASKing the lack of notability here, morphing the article into a WP:COATRACK of the baseball squirrel universe. Changing the article to cover all baseball squirrels would be a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 unless multiple sources provide significant coverage on the categorization as a whole and not just a passing mention. If a standalone article is not suitable, notable information should still be WP:PRESERVEd, e.g. merge with 2011 National League Division Series, or 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season if it remains a news item in a subsequent series. Also consider contributing to Wikinews when WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content to 2011 National League Division Series as an amusing story... but has no lasting otability on it's own. Spanneraol (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, do not merge. None of this is relevant to the 2011 NLDS, which involves baseball, not rodents. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's part of the commentary of the series so a brief mention on the 2011 NLDS article makes sense. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see squirrels running on the field as being important enough to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've decided to change my vote to Userfy. It is too soon to say this is notable, and I am granting now that there is a chance it could become notable in the future, though I believe that as of now it is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A water-cooler story which fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to satisfy a lot of the guidelines for WP:EVENT. Depth of coverage, diversity of sources, event didn't occur once, but three games in a row.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not Voting' as I don't have an account, but it is simply too soon to tell whether this will be notable. I think there's a distinct possibility, but sports fan traditions take some time to coalesce.  It makes no sense to argue about whether the rally squirrel IS or IS NOT notable.  No sense at all.  71.236.242.147 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where this happens all the time.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence me not having an account. This is a combination of an Occupy Wikipedia Democracy Hut and a middle school student council meeting.71.236.242.147 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, This is going to be like the Rally Monkey in Anaheim, I can tell you right now the Rally Squirrel is a good luck charm for the Cardinals and it happening twice warrants something.--Jack Cox (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not speculate on future notability until it actually happens.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the rally squirrel get like the Rally Monkey? It's a wild squirrel.  I think I read they are trying to humanely remove the squirrel, not make it a recurring theme.  Wknight94 talk 22:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- or at the very least merge into the St. Louis Cardinals Wiki in some form. I guess I'm just an "inclusionist" by nature. Like someone said above, "don't be elitist". For better or worse many times when "Joe Sixpack" hears about something on the news he's likely to do a Wikipedia search for it, Rally Squirrel included. Thats been my experience anyway. I fail to see the harm in keeping this article. There are tens of thousands of others that could be considered of far less value, depending on your viewpoint I guess. Sector001 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM or WP:USEFUL are not valid arguments for inclusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not encyclopedic. The nearest rules are NOT NEWS and NOT TABLOID--the sort of material which is written about because readers find it amusing, the press ore broadcast or online material that is best termed "filler". None of this is ever encyclopedic   content unless the story becomes a classic, in which case the article, like an article on an internet meme, should be describing the spread of the meme, not the underlying triviality. It's hard to codify this into written rules, so we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an  encyclopedia  and chatter. My wording of it, is the notability  has to be about  notability for something.  This is one of the shortcomings of blind use of the GNG--it should rather be interpreted as the screen for what things that might be notable  really are, rather than an overarching rule making any imaginable topic notable.    DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that argument also delete most of the articles listed under WP:ODD, including several Featured articles? For example, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office? William Windsor (goat)? Exploding whale? Are these "an encyclopedia" or "chatter"? --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those all look like "official" and/or unique animals and titles. This squirrel was a total accident and has probably already been trapped and released into nearby woods.  It's not some official mascot like the Rally Monkey.  As someone said above, it's more like someone running out on to the field.  Wknight94 talk 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG, squirrels randomly entering a ball game is by pure chance and not intentional, which in turn isn't encyclopedic. Textbook case of WP:NOT Secret account 18:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait and see what happens in the World Series, as the rally squirrel is getting national attention. I agree the information should be kept in some form now, (before it was some silly mime that met WP:NOT, but not anymore) but I don't know if it's a merge or a standalone article. I agree fully with Cbl62 here. Secret account 05:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per NOT NEWS.Orsoni (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be a classic WP:ODD story. Articles like this one meet all our sourcing standards, yet keep Wikipedia quirky. We're supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge, and, guess what - the world isn't always a serious place. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Numerous reliable sources in the article qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, not sure about this one. Full disclosure: I wrote the article. I'll leave its disposition to my esteemed colleagues, but a couple of points:
 * The story is still unfolding. Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital is now using Rally Squirrel as a fundraising mascot, and the squirrel is slated to appear at the team rally tomorrow, and I've just added this info to the article. It looks like this is pretty big in St. Louis, which I'll grant may say more about the lack of anything worthwhile to talk about in St. Louis than any inherent notability of this rodent. But given that the story is still in play, it might be a good idea to relist the article rather than closing it right away.
 * It is sad that this article is longer than Tawakel Karman's (well, it was; it's not anymore) but what do you want me to do? People like to write and read about animals, I guess. We have scores of articles on individual animals. Twiggy the Water-Skiing Squirrel is the only other squirrel, but we have a racoon with a thyroid problem, a koala bear, a manatee, a meerkat; Category:Individual mammals alone has 21 (!) subcategories including five rabbits, nine pigs, three fish, three deer, and 53 elephants. Granted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but it's only not a good argument if the rejoinder is "Well, those other articles arguably shouldn't exist either". You want to make that argument about these scores (hundreds, if you include horses) of articles? Maybe. I'm not sure about that. It would be a big move to delete all or most of these articles, some or even many of which seem to have only a handful of refs or are otherwise no more notable than Rally Squirrel. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As "The story is still unfolding", I would have preferred to wait for it to fully "fold" before creating a standalone article. Suitable articles to have added this to would have been 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season or 2011 National League Division Series, including it later in the general St. Louis Cardinals article if it spanned multiple season, with the final option to WP:SPINOUT it it ever acquired standalone notability. The subject is most notable in relation to the Cardinals or the playoffs, not if this article  remains an orphan by oversight or by consensus in other articles to not include.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose. WP:SPINOUT is one way for an article to come into existence. Is it the only legitimate way? I don't know, but if it is there are a lot articles in trouble, I would guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that spinout is the only way for an article to come into being. But when a subject clearly emerges from an existing article then the question does become not only is something notable enough to be mentioned, but when is it notable separate from whatever it's spawning from. See again Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run. If that happened in a Wikipedia world you couldn't say the day after that it was an event notable enough to warrant it's own article separate from Kirk Gibson or 1988 World Series. The only piece of "sudden" lore in baseball I'm aware of that got it's own article while the story was still being written was Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. And that (a) somewhat spawned out of our habit of making articles for perfect games and (b) was commented on by a US governor and the president, it clearly had developed further. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess. The article is already sourced to the New York Times, Washington Post, Toronto Sun, and the St. Louis and Pittsburgh and Seattle and Detroit papers and so forth. I'm not clear what I'm suppose to wait for here... notices in Isvestia or the People's Daily, maybe? The Lancet or Science or Foreign Affairs, I guess. As to getting notice from the President of the United States, that's a pretty high barrier for a squirrel. He's just a little squirrel, he's not Ratatoskr. These are all pretty high barriers for any article, I think. I've written tons of articles on subjects that the President hasn't weighed in on. Well, you have pretty high standards, which is OK. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to see if this is just a news spike or it has notablity. WP:N notes " Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage."  Also see WP:RECENT.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not how much "critical analysis" we're going to see: it is a squirrel. There's already a tie-in to Norse mythology which I think most baseball events don't have. Here is an economic-impact analysis, although granted only peripherally about the Rally Squirrel per se. If we're waiting for articles like "Rally Squirrel: Another Harbinger of the Decline of Western Civilization?" or "Rally Squirrel and the Inner Self: A Critical Response" or something, I suppose we'll have a pretty long wait. It's already pretty notable in St. Louis, which after all has more people (metro area) than Jamaica or Mongolia and more than half as many as Norway or Ireland. So, hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, even the mythological tie-in is a huge stretch and an example of a newspaper writer editorializing like hell. I would be willing to almost guarantee that NOBODY in that stadium was thinking "hmmmm... this reminds me of that story about Ratatoskr." I definitely see a very thin thread of notability at this point, but correct, there's not going to be any real critical analysis of the situation. And if there is, it will definitely be very tongue-in-cheek. Trusilver  19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Realistically in the context of sports and not a subject like world peace, I would expect to see WP:INDEPTH stories that look at the series of events as a whole and summarizes the phenomena as opposed to a string of recent news reports that just report the event. Each baseball year's rallying cry is not necessarily worthy of an article, and instead is WP:PRESERVEd in sections like 2010's rally thong or 1984's Cub-Busters.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely, 100% this (coupled with your earlier WP:N quote that "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage,"). A single-year event that draws heavy coverage because of the era we're in does not de facto become notable. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Userify/Holding pattern Basically. I have no problem with oddities where the oddities are really and truly notable. See Pine Tar Incident, Disco Demolition Night, Ten Cent Beer Night, Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run, The Catch (baseball), et al for examples of moments/trivia/etc in baseball history notable enough to warrant articles. But there has to be some level of historical relevance regardless of the coverage that the modern news media creates. IE, we don't have an article for "Rocktober", the term universally used for the Colorado Rockies surprising run through the 2007 playoffs. Had they won the Series or been a dominant team for a decade maybe that term would've gained further traction and we would, but they didn't and it didn't. (note, I actually stand corrected, someone recreated that, but I'm going to be bold). Every event in any widely watched forum will get tons of coverage, that doesn't mean it warrants it's own article. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This squirrel definitely has legs, and so does the Rally Squirrel meme, if you watch this Major League Baseball Legends of the Fall commercial that features the Rally Squirrel. The 40,000 Rally Squirrel towels the team was planning on handing out before Wednesday's game shows that the St. Louis Cardinals are heavily marketing this squirrel thing. At the least, current sources in the article alone are enough to show notability. I know, it's only sports, it's only St. Louis, so I may be nuts. First Light (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has become a phenomenon during this postseason and gotten lots of media attention.  MLB has even released a "Legends Are Born in October" commercial about the squirrel: .  It certainly has notability and is one of the most recognized moments of this postseason.  If, as time goes on, it becomes clear that this moment is forgotten and no one cares about it anymore, then will be the proper time to nominate the article for deletion.  For now, it is notable and sourced and should remain.  TempDog123 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, if this article gets deleted, then so should Rally Monkey, as they are similar. You HAVE to be fair in editing an encyclopedia, and if this is taken out, I will put a request to remove Rally Monkey for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.35.44 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference, Rally Monkey was 10 years ago, and years later there are still references to it. Anyone that claims to know what will happen here is looking at a WP:CRYSTAL ball.  The fact that keep's are saying we can delete it later if it dies might be a sign of getting carried away by WP:RECENT news.  Its either notable today and forever, or its not ready for prime time.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I ran in to an article on WSJ, and I had no idea what the Rally Squirrel was. This wikipedia entry helped. Please keep. 160.83.72.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Thanks! Thats the point I was trying to make when I made my original vote to keep. Wikipedia has become a "go to" source for the public at large when they want more information on a subject -- be it the Rally Squirrel or Russian tanks. That seems like a good thing to me, not something to get all pretentious over and claim something isn't encyclopedia worthy. We're the peoples encyclopedia, right? So lets give the people what they're searching for. Sector001 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really need proof that this thing is now a mascot, check this out (picture taken from downtown St Louis during a pregame pep rally) http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10150351119061248&set=pu.49095766247&type=1&theater
 * Delete. Let's put this in perspective: this is just media hype (WP:SENSATION) that will have no lasting impact or legacy (WP:EFFECT). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a crystal ball the rest of us don't? How can you know at this point what lasting impact or legacy the Rally Squirrel may have on the team, the fans, and the city? For all we know at this point "Stan the Rally Squirrel" (as some are calling him, in honor or MLB Hall of Famer Stan Musial) might become a secondary mascot to "Fredbird". As noted in the photo link above they're already making appearances together. Sector001 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please! A squirrel running across the field! Even if you don't use common sense, it still fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And he also could not become a secondary mascot. That's the point of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Something isn't notable when it has the possibility to become notable, it is notable when it's notable. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the IP contributor notes, there's an article about it in the Wall Street Journal. Not a passing mention, primary focus. It's notable now. --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:EFFECT says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Just in case anyone overlooked a side.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak (and surprised) Keep. When I saw this AfD listing, I fully expected to vote to "Delete."  But the news coverage given to this critter in the most respected media outlets, including New York Times and Wall Street Journal, surprised me.  The extent of coverage indicate this has gone beyond sports trivia to achieve a sufficient level of notability.  Other examples have been given above, and one I find to be somewhat comparable is Paul the Octopus, who garnered major media attention last year.  I'd suggest keeping this open for another week to see how thing play out with the conclusion of the NLCS and World Series.  Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the first time I heard on a rally squirrel and this article just told me what it was. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wide coverage in the media; very likely to be remembered for a long time, as opposed to just being news. (Sports fans have long memories...just ask that one goat in Chicago). - The Bushranger One ping only 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Very likely" = WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - What the hell is wrong with you people? The team has been dressing up a person in a squirrel suit (which the link showing it was conviently removed, obviously by a person wanting this article removed, because it shows how there are currently TWO mascots for St Louis) so the team currently has 2 mascots. It shouldn't matter how it "plays out" in the future, because there are at the present time (and historical reasons for this team, because this will be noted as past mascots in Cardinal history) TWO mascots- Fredbird and Rally Squirrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.230 (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus, default to keep: Come on, the project will live.  Plus Herostratus deserves a chance as an established editor to make the article worthwhile keeping.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:02, 18 October 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.