Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miller 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 merge to Rotherham United F.C.. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Bear

No claim to significance or notability. I nominated this for speedy, which was declined under the rationale that speedy is for people, not bears. In the future, let's bend the rules to include our ursine friends. JNW (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotherham United F.C.. Can't see any reason for a mascot for a football club to have notability independent of the club, unless you're H'Angus the Monkey. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it can be verified, otherwise redirect. Mascots should be covered in team articles unless they are more widely known (or unless splitting is needed) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article on the team could mention the bear. It looks like this article was partly written as a joke, since the bear as an info box as if he were a player on the team. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One has trouble seeing why mascots are significant enough, except for a handful of examples that have earned media coverage over many years, to merit mention at all, let alone meet encyclopedic standards for significance. This particular one is thus far unreferenced, and turns up no Google hits--what's to merge? Agreed that this was likely done as a lark. JNW (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this Google search [1] reveals very little, but does not dampen one's initial interpretation, that the bear is a dressed-up human. JNW (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (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.