Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiafia


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fiafia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

*Delete - This was a good nomination for the wrong reasons. 72 nominations in one day is irresponsible, but a broken clock is right twice a day. This seems like an unimportant concept. We are much more than a dictionary. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy keep: WP:BEFORE would have given you lots of Google Books Hits, I added the 2 most important. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The oral literature book being a lot more important than the dictionary. &#9786;  There's also the dance in Tokelau entry in ISBN 9780824822651, although that title misses out a lot of the stuff in the thing that is not dancing.  Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article belongs in a dictionary. These is nothing in this article that shows that it is actually covering a notable topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jack Pack Lambert. Just a definition and a bit of trivia. A fiafiasco. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- Clearly falls under WP:NOTDICT--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: this may seem like an "unimportant concept" to me as an American, but I imagine it matters to the people of Tokelau. There are three references here, everything is verifiable; it's just a stub. jp×g 01:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a dictionary definition, even if this was "Tokelau wikipedia", I would vote the same.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and what the difference between a stub and a dictionary article actually is. You are getting it wrong.  Uncle G (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Update. The article has just been improved with new references. I think it is fair to say that this is definitely NOT an unimportant topi. My WP:BEFORE was not sufficient. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. To quote from WP:DICDEF: Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. This is not the case here, though I see how the pre-expansion version of this article gives that immediate impression. I commend the finding of sources that should have been found WP:BEFORE. — Goszei (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking at the state of the article before the additions, it did seem like just a dictionary definition, but it's sourced now, and it's clear it isn't just a DICDEF. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2021 (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.