Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paddlepop stick


 * 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 delete. Can't redirect to Popsicle stick as it would be a double redirect. If an article ever emerges at Popsicle stick then no prejudice against reviving this article as a redirect then.  A  Train talk 07:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Paddlepop stick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable in itself, and a differently-spelled article on Paddle pop already exists. Any valid content should go there. Can't even see the need for a redirect to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that the article Paddle pop is about the food, not the stick. But the article may be insignificant. Cricketer993 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2017
 * Delete Seriously wondering why a one-line article with no refs merits an AFD. Content entirely insignificant.96.127.242.251 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Be nice on the newbie. None of the delete !votes here actually present why the subject is not notable, and there are probably sources out there. I will be finding them over the next few minutes.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   01:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator is a newbie?96.127.242.251 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to popsicle stick (currently a redirect) – It took a lot of Google Books searches but I've finally found: Handbook of Popsicle Stick Bridges and Bridges: Amazing Structures to Design, Build and Test. There is probably more as well, but I cannot find them.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[[Use
 * J947 thanks for that. I've been slammed with school for the last few days. Yeah, moving it there is a good idea. Keep and move Cricketer993 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Is this a joke? No citations, clearly fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fancruft and trivia, and not even grammatically correct: "It is used for it's (sic) strength". No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 17 October 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.