Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responses to sneezing

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. Gesundheit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to sneezing

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

Almost entirely uncited, and some of the listed responses seem unlikely. It's an amusing page, for sure, but not verifiable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely uncited since 2009. Citogenesis waiting to happen. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be trivial. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Very enjoyable page, causing no harm to anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.29 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per countless readily available sources such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Of course the article, like millions of others, needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per readily available sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the thing to do is remove all unsourced items as possible hoaxes (per User:Gamaliel). That would leave us with English, Icelandic, German, and the first line of the lede. The non-list content is already too weak for an article, so I'm leaning toward Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the books that I linked above is an academic work that lists the responses in a dozen or so languages, and that's just one of the sources that I found in a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think notability factors in at all here; this is clearly a sub-page of sneeze. The "List of responses in other languages" table may be better suited for some other wiki (Wiktionary?) but I don't have any specific proposal that I think is an improvement. I agree there's a case to delete by WP:TNT to ensure all the content is sourced properly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this is a sub-page of sneeze. Most reliable sources, such as those that I listed above, seem to cover this in the context of language and culture rather than of sneezing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete ~~stuff~~ articles just because at present they happen to be unsourced. The topic is clearly notable, and if there are issues with any specific entries, it will be a trivial task to verify them against a dictionary. Mention of the topic can of course be made at Sneeze but the list is too long to be merged there. – Uanfala 06:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources available that can verify this article's contents (see, e.g., this and this). The solution is to add references, not delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I just looked this page up to find out about ways to say bless you in other languages. It definitely serves a purpose, and I certainly think the information CAN be sourced. Unsourced info can be challenged and removed, obviously, but there is no reason to delete the page, as the topic is something that people wonder about, and further there is enough info to have a standalone article apart from the Sneezing page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:43, 20 September 2017 (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.