Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacFarlane's bear

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacFarlane's bear

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is insufficient RS coverage to establish notability as a proposed species. Although events described in the article seem to be factual, it has received practically zero notice from the scientific community aside from classifying it as a misidentified grizzly. If this were of any interest at all, one would expect a biographical entry on MacFarlane and a Smithsonian newsletter about the MacFarlane Collection to at least mention the bear specimen. A BEFORE search returned almost entirely fringe cryptozoological sources. –dlthewave ☎ 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Vetularctos and species Vetularctos inopinatus were described, but they are now clearly considered synonyms of Ursus and Ursus arctos horribilis respectively (see here and here). They thus perhaps warrant a mention on a list of synonyms, but nothing more without some better sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid, which this specimen almost certainly was. Eostrix (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for that? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 1864 specimen is described in various papers, e.g. Journal of Mammalogy in 1954. The Guinness World Record book (yes, not a great source) gives the hybrid explanation as most likely: [1], as does this ABC-CLIO book on Cryptozoology. Eostrix (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABC-CLIO book on Cryptozoology is a fringe source, not at all reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requesting more opinions on redirecting the article to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 09:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding a few mentions, it may need work. "Guinness World Records 2016" "Lives of game animals 1953" "Secrets of the natural world

Reader's Digest 1993" and others.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dufresne, Frank (1991). No room for bears. p. 121. has an interesting single paragraph. They [Canadians] remember well the case of the "Patriarchal Bear" named in 1918 by our C. Hart Merriam on the basis of a single, unique lower second molar found...was for many years hailed as a valuable scientific contribution about an exceedingly rare creature...following scrutiny...cross Vetularctos off... Content for an article somewhere, how much is needed to go against WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES for standalone? Some background and references here—eric 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft It is probably worth mentioning that the type specimen has been confirmed to be a grizzly. It would be a very short article, but i think putting good information in place of cryptid articles is worthwhile.—eric 06:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not worth a redirect to Grizzly–polar bear hybrid; the bear is mentioned there but in a speculative fashion and without any sources, as in:

It has been suggested that...
If the remains of MacFarlane's 1864 specimen...

Should be removed from the "hybrid" article also. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Grizzly–polar bear hybrid, which this animal almost certainly was. The target article already has sections for individual animals, so a selective merge would fit well. Reyk _YO! 17:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two reliable sources which state it was just a grizzly.—eric 19:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable secondary sources don't seem to be there for this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Grizzly–polar bear hybrid - no reason for complete deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources describe this as a hybrid? It's currently understood to be a normal grizzly specimen. –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found In Guinness World Records 2016 Page 182 of the bookRumors of Existence: Newly Discovered, Supposedly Extinct, and Unconfirmed Inhabitants of the Animal Kingdom by Matthew A. Bille. and many more. WP:BARE. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (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.