Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckskinning


 * 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. SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Buckskinning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD reverted without improvement. Buckskinning is an important hobby for many to be sure. The article was original research in 2008. A search today turns up blogs and people trying to sell magazines, books, and gear, but I saw no reliable independent sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep So now you're claiming that hobbies are another of the things on your list of "these topics just can't be notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find sources such as Preserving Western History. The nominator should not be using WP:PROD for "an important hobby" because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". Andrew D. (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep No Wikipedian reason given for deletion.  So, it's a stub that needs work including sourcing. Many sources exist, and it certainly meets wp:notability and should be covered in Wikipedia.  North8000  (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. A quick google-book search shows at least six books with buckskinning in the title, and many-many hits with contents in the book. It seems a notable enough hobby. The article text seems reasonable, if stubby, and there is a pic - required article improvement seems to be limited to citing a source or two (after verifying the information is correct).Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Goodness me, this is the proverbial Keep per nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep no policy-based rationale for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (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.