Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fork of Vevey

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. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Vevey

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

Seeing no in depth coverage (in fact very few mentions that would pass the RS test), and as a record unlikely to have lasting notability (after all it will only be famous until a bigger one is made). Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage in the article is very in-depth indicating passing WP:GNG. We go by reliable sources to demonstrate what's notable, not blind original research speculation as to what is. --Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over half the sources are primary, and thus do not establish notability, so what in depth coverage is left?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage in ABC and The Guinness Book of World Records are sufficient to establish notability. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is all trivial and in passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep world record setting fork. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a tourist attraction and permanent exhibit. The article is sufficiently well sourced to be retained. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (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.