Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Käpylehmä

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. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Käpylehmä

Käpylehmä (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced article that has remained in situ largely unedited for some time. I believe that the article should be deleted as it is no more than a dictionary entry with no notability claimed - thus fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bigdaddy1981 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Contested deletion by the way, so here we are. Bigdaddy1981 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend Copy to Wiktionary, and perhaps WP:USERFY and redirect, since there's some sort of notoriety (not necessarily notability). -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly people do make these things. Here is a picture of them doing it. Here's another. The question is whether they've documented the history and cultural significance of these figurines somewhere, so that we have sources to work from. I'm still looking for sources. Uncle G 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree, its not a hoax and I was also able to find photos of the items and people making them; however, I could find no sources documenting their historical or cultural significance - if someone can find some I'd gladly change my view. Bigdaddy1981 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• semi-keep - The information is worthy of inclusion, but maybe not it's own article? Maybe Wiktionary like wizzard says? Zab 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As a Finn I can vouch for the authenticity of these things. Also, I wouldn't recommend dumping these to Wiktionary since they're more of an encyclopedic subject, not something that would belong to a dictionary. --ざくら木 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if references can be added--slightly more in-depth than a dictionary entry would be. Appears to be notable in Finland, hence the interwiki link. Is there a guideline regarding notability in terms of articles being English translations of notable foreign-language subjects? And is it permissible to use Finnish-language references, if English ones can't be found? I don't think this would be appropriate for wiktionary. Otherwise merge with conifer cone, expanding on the information that is already there. Katr67 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Certainly people do make these things, but why on earth do they warrant a Wikipedia article? They don't have any such cultural or historical significance. Elrith 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It could use some sources though. --Stlemur 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment was created (translated from finnish wikipedia actually) in 2005 and no sources ever added to date. Deleting this unsourced and quite vestigial stub will not prevent future editors (perhaps someone above?) creating a properly sourced article on this topic if it should merit it. Bigdaddy1981 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, more references would be better. I disagree with the reasoning at [1] - obviously putting a stick in a pinecone doesn't make something notable, but if lots of people do this, it has a name for it, and there are reliable sources documenting it, then it's notable no matter how stupid the toy seems. Mdwh 10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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.