Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler teapot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Editors are encouraged to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler teapot[edit]

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

Hitler teapot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was certainly a fun and interesting read! All the same I think WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies here. Hope I'm wrong... Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the context of this being the subject of discussion in subsequent years, it should stay:
Also more non-news writing:
Keep I think, but open minded to be persuaded if I'm missing something CT55555 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article describes an object rather than a single event, I don't think NOTNEWS applies here. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point wuz that much of the sourcing is derived from news dating to March 2013 over the kerfuffle that the kettle caused. @CT55555: Thanks, hadn't come across those sources, but I find them very trivial. "This being the subject of discussion in subsequent years" is a blatant, blatant distortion of the sources and I urge others to look at them for yourself. It's a passing reference in both, certainly not the "subject of discussion"... It's almost as if we are looking at different sources... ODM one is far more substantive but I can't vouch for its reliability. Can't access the book. So it's by-and-large still a case of NOTNEWS imo... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're over analyzing this. Even without my sources I think it meets WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes all the difference coz this is precisely what NOTNEWS is guarding against (sure, it's more of an object than an event, but that's really just splitting hairs). The point is, yes, a lot has been written about it but it's a) frivolous coverage b) all from the same period in time (March 2013). As I admitted, it's interesting and well-written but surely at AfD we should interrogate the subject's inherent notability more thoroughly. I simply don't see evidence of notability here, just "thousands of hits on Google"-ity. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with CT55555. However, it can be said the mentions in some of the new sources are trivial, but we do have others from reliable sources like The Guardian, NPR, (at least, I hope their reliable!) going into much detail about the controversy. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I feel like we might slipping into a Wikiphilosophy discussion… judging from some of the other comments, I really don’t think it’s clear that this article comes under WP:NOTNEWS, so we might find this boiling down to a inclusionist vs. deletionist debate… maybe… like…. very maybe. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use more sources, but an interesting bit of 21st Century pop culture. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I’m afraid I don’t really see how NOTNEWS applies clearly to this, I think Sean Brunnock put it best. (I’d like to thank CT55555 for finding some more sources as well, very much appreciated!) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS only applies to current events: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". However, this article is not about an event, it's about a teapot. The policy doesn't apply here. Don't get me wrong-- the article could certainly use more sources to show that it's remained significant in subsequent years-- but that's not something a little editing can't fix. I think that the participants in this discussion have found quite a few good sources to demonstrate this. I'd also like to chip in with this coverage from 2015: https://books.google.com/books/about/Hitler_s_Doubles.html?id=OBFNCAAAQBAJ, pages 475-76. Helen(💬📖) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image in the article is on the far right. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this item, not an event, also received coverage in subsequent years. A few books hits in google.--Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'm most likely swimming against a snow close here, but the relevant guideline is WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:SUSTAINED, not WP:NOTNEWS—and I ain't seein' it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:49, 4 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hitler_teapot&oldid=1090274469"