Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Duck

Paper Duck[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Contested CSD. Mdann52 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are about a plush toy known as "Paper Duck". The article has as three references. Reference #1 is about a Tiktok trend of making paper ducks, and is not about a plush toy, nor does it even mention a plush toy. Reference #2 is a youtube video showing how to fold an origami duck and is not at all about a plush toy. Reference #2 is not accessible to me, but I highly doubt that an academic paper from 2001 about beetles published in the Australian Journal of Entomology would be about a plush duck toy. The only relation that paper would have to a duck would be that the surname of one of the authors is "Duck". It looks to me like the article's creator simply googled "Paper Duck" and slapped three of the results that showed up as references without actually evaluating the references. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article creator was just mistaken in using the term "plush toy", possibly English isn't their first language. I corrected it to "paper doll" - the copyvio image they illustrated the article with (which has since been removed) did seem to be the same paper cutout as in the TikTok article, I think that's the only possible subject in question here. Belbury (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the change to being a paper doll, it is still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but we should weigh up whether there are enough sources to consider the paper doll as notable, rather than the plush doll, when no such plush doll exists. Belbury (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: out of interest, have you found a copy of the paper cited in reference #2? Looking at volume 40(4), the page numbers don't line up, it hasn't been published in the previous edition or volume, and I'm suspecting more of a hoax reference. Mdann52 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access the journal, so I can't see inside. I was unable to find any reference to the paper in other searches, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may be a hoax reference, or it may be a real paper, but I doubt very much that if it were a real paper, the contents of the paper would be of any relevance to this article given the other two references. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I've posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Australian Journal of Entomology to see if anybody might have access. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the result is in. There is no such paper. It is a hoax reference. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that an AI hallucinated it, given the article creator's otherwise low level of English fluency. Which would also explain the "plush toy" thing. (I asked the user on their talk page if they used an AI to generate the text and they didn't understand the question or make any sense in their reply.) Belbury (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are right. It looks like it may be a combination of a AI tools and machine translation tools being used. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I mean, they're cute, but... ehh... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only relevant sources I can find are the existing wegotthiscovered.com article and a Dexerto article from one day earlier. Both are very superficial overviews reporting that a TikTok trend for paper ducks existed for a month or so around the start of 2022. I see no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it. Belbury (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Japan, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Does not warrant a separate article, except may be merging with a relevant list. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]