Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug (tuber)


 * 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 no consensus. and none appears likely to emerge. Star  Mississippi  14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Doug (tuber)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Stylishly written, but probably a case of NOTNEWS...? Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I approved the draft article and moved it into mainspace. I would not have done this if I had not been convinced that GNG is met. It's incredible how much news exposure this item was given in New Zealand. And this went on for weeks and then got a second wind when the genetic test results were released. I see from article sources that international media also picked up on it and, yes, whilst it's not the most important issue on earth, it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements (multiple RS; in-depth coverage).  Schwede 66  09:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I would not have nominated this at AfD if I had not been convinced that GNG is not met...... I think the spirit of NOTNEWS precisely guards against articles like this. Multiple RS & in-depth (if not repetitive) coverage are insufficient when it comes to topics that are inherently 'water-cooler' ones with no lasting impact... Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, also of course. We'll see what the wider community has to say.  Schwede 66  08:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just struggling to find an equivalent article here. I am just not convinced that the subject is inherently notable, particularly because "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I really believe that the number of "bursts" of significant coverage is secondary to the fact that this is, frankly speaking, frivolous. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also find it ironic that we don't have an article for the actual largest potato in the world... Part of me wonders if things would have panned out differently if they hadn't named this tuber. Psychologically, at least, I think it'd be easier to see why this "largest potato claimant that turned out not to be the largest potato" (as opposed to good ol' "Doug") shouldn't have its own article here. But maybe that's what makes all the real difference, huh Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It received two bursts of coverage, once in November 2021 when it was discovered and once in March 2022 when the results of the genetic testing were released. If there had only been a single burst of coverage then it would probably fail NOTNEWS, but because sources apparently deemed it important enough to run stories on it a second time, it's enough to pass. Mlb96 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This has cleared the GNG by far, with very reliable sources, and does not fall under any of the four categories at WP:NOTNEWS. Deletion is completely uncalled for. Toadspike (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  A groaning keep with the Ukraine Russian war going this is epic journalism. Meets WP:GNG because it was well covered NealeWellington (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as per Sandstein. I have changed my mind and whilt agree it is covered in mainstream media I really don't think the tuber will stand the test of time. NealeWellington (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS "2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... routine news reporting of announcements."
 * I am not saying we have to be consistent, it is just not practical. But, does anyone remember Anna Wilding. She fooled media into covering her and because of it we deleted the page. Are we keeping the tuber because it had no nefarious intent? The same with the judge whose son broke Covid rules, her dog was also untrustworthy.
 * I just want us to remember today for future discussions. Today we clearly say something does not have to have any value or importance, it has to has coverage. I am not necessarily against this, it is a literal reading of our rules, but it is different from what I have been seeing on other discussions. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or at best selectively merge to Tuber. WP:NOTNEWS applies, even when multiple media have picked up this incredibly trivial human interest story.  Sandstein   18:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep due to wide coverage over two different occasions - if it has just been reported November 2021 then it would be a delete. Also as not a person or business no worries regarding promotion or ego building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs) 09:59, April 3, 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per Sandstein. If this was a record size for a tuber (or potato, had it been one) it would at best be merged into the appropriate botanical article.- gadfium 19:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sandstein. No demonstration of lasting notability, which is a factor.  It's just the "human interest story" of the day. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. No indication of lasting notability. Single sentence mention in tuber is enough. SWinxy (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Due to extensive coverage (New Zealand, British, American) at 2 points: the discovery of the "potato", and its demotion to gourd. So not just any old news item. Ficaia (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Still fails notability guidelines. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2022 (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.