Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stranger Among Bears

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 keep. Star Mississippi 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Among Bears[edit]

[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)

No sources found. Prod removed without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor: Nominator evidently can't stand that someone would dare to disturb their dizzying deletionist spree, as they couldn't wait for me to finish writing that comment before taking this to AFD. I read the article and saw that it was really more about Charlie Vandergaw than the television series. I then did a proper BEFORE search and came up with sources from ABC News, Anchorage Daily News, Seattle Times, Bend Bulletin and multiple hits on the personal website of Craig Medred, a credentialed outdoors writer who also wrote the ADN piece linked to above. The ST article was paywalled for me, but everything else appeared to be indepth, even if all of it was centered on one episode (read: potential BLP1E) rather than his life as a whole. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my comment when I contested the PROD, I caught wind of this through a WikiProject alert page. This AFD is following the exact same pattern as the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Wing Men, also initiated by you, and possibly other AFDs I haven't noticed. Wouldn't you expect your fellow editors to be curious why this is occurring? What I found was you engaging in indiscriminate deletion-related activity through Twinkle. WP:TW still begins with a prominent banner stating in part "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle". Exposing a pattern of targeting articles for deletion so other editors can find sources for you is highly pertinent to the nomination, especially given the likelihood of how many times it's happened before. Why would you hide behind the notion that every action you initiate exists in a bubble? Special:Contributions exists for a reason. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources identified by RadioKAOS above. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I appreciate the efforts of the nomination to rid Wikipedia of non-notable content. This article however I feel does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While meeting WP:GNG does not guarantee inclusion, I consider on this occasion there is insufficient reason to delete this article, because after all it is covered in the below sources (thanks to RadioKAOS for identifying these.

Source assessment
Source	Reliable	Independent	Significant coverage?
ABC News	Yes	Yes	Yes. The sources covers the subject in detail.
Anchorage Daily News	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.
Seattle Times	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.
Bend Bulletin	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.

I hope this helps. MaxnaCarter (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then move to Charlie Vandergaw. there is SIGCOV, meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs. Still think it's a good idea to pretend that this exists in a bubble? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion such as ABC news, Seattle Times and Alaska News so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable but needs more inline citations, the lack of which can make it appear noncompliant with OR. We inadvertently get tripped-up thinking we need a large number of RS for a topic to be notable and worthy of inclusion, but that simply is not the case. If it were, we would have fewer articles about academics, women, math equations, literature, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough sources have been presented here to pass WP:GNG, article just need more/better citations. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by RadioKAOS are independent of the article subject, generally reliable, and cover the article subject significantly. As such, the article subject easily passes the WP:GNG. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I will separately note that the article is currently not in great shape. But, per WP:DEL-CONTENT, if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The sources I refer to in my !vote above should be sufficient to improve the page, so I don't find the reasons for deletion given above that are based out of the current state of the article to be persuasive. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (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.