Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedobear (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedobear

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

Just another 4chan meme, not worthy of a seperate article and is just forumcruft. ☭FryPod 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly Weak Keep – Seems to have a bit of coverage. Refs: [1] [2] [3] [4] "Pedobear, a pop-culture symbol denoting pedophilia" --Odie5533 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Odie5533 found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not just another 4chan meme. Memes don't normally have that many 3rd party sources or reach outside of 4chan intself. Then again, not the most notable of subjects for an article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Interesting article and notability seems well documented. Carrite (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Btw, I've added the references indicated by Odie above, as well as some content from them. --Waldir ^talk 02:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In current form has sufficient sources to merit own page or at the very least a merge. CooperDB (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, eminently notable (not to mention irresistibly adorably cute and cuddly). Tisane ^talk/_stalk 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Tisane. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to pass notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2010 (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.