Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sucrology


 * 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 merge to Sugar packet. RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sucrology

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

Very niche hobby, very niche coverage (minor news about Guinness book record, a UK club, etc.). Next to zero sources found in GScholar/Books query, what little there is seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  17:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not sure why a deletion discussion was started here. This is a reasonable search term, so you could just redirect to a larger article if needed. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it interesting that this article dates back to December 2004. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @MZMcBride Redirect where? I am open to suggestions, a redirect is a good WP:ATD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is about all I could find, the same from the 2022 version of the book as well; they are nothing more than DICDEF. Likely too niche for RS to cover. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually amazed there isn't *something* written about this. Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This from quite some time ago and this, both tangential mentions of the hobby. And a brief feature on a TV program . Weak, weak keep based on these, I'd feel bad if we couldn't keep some sort of an article about it, it appears somewhat popular. There's a club in the UK dedicated to this hobby. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge (or at best a very very weak keep) - actually found a "public interest story" in a local newspaper and a mention of this term on "ripley's believe it or not"; What very little mention exists is there to make light/fun of a the idea of collecting sugar packets. Does entertainment outlets making light/fun of something incredibly obscure an indicator of notable?Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Flibbertigibbets A very very weak one :) Would be good to think of a possible redirect and small merge. This is something that can be mentioned on Wikipedia, but without sources that are both reliable and do a WP:SIGCOV treatment of this, keeping this as a stand-alone is not very justified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I located a reasonable redirect target for WP:ATD: Sugar_packet (unreferenced short section on this, linking to the article discussed here). I suggest we added the best referenced we have there, maybe merge a sentnece or two if any seem useful, and redirect this there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, this way the content is preserved as wellFlibbertigibbets (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a wonderful solution. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect A full article is unnecessary and excessive, but some coverage, as suggested above, is definitely warranted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep Merge some of the content into Sugar_packet and redirect article title. Great to find this hobby publicised but sad it's via an AfD discussion. There's quite a few interviews with collectors in local UK newspapers. A man from Cumbria accumulated 34,000 packets apparently. Nothing in The Times though. I used "sugar packet collecting" as the search term in Wikilibrary. Love the quaint first version of the page in the history. Suppose that would be lost in a merge. Does this count? Rupples (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews are WP:PRIMARY so that argument is null and void. They can be used to verify a subject exists, but thats about it. They are not WP:SECONDARY   scope_creep Talk  23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How does an article about miniature books relate to this topic? In either case, sugar packet collecting should be a redirect, I'll create it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article mentions sugar packets were used to make miniature books, but this is not strictly related to collecting as a sucrologist. I can't in all honesty support my opinion by recourse to WP policy and guidelines but I'm OK with a merge of some of the content into the sugar packet article so will change my opinion to that. Thanks for the redirect you've just done. Will that redirect automatically follow through into the sugar packet article, if as seems likely, this article is deleted? Rupples (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rupples If it's deleted, it would require manual action, I think. But I hope this will be just redirected (or merged and redirected), as ith a section in the article on suger packets, we have a perfectly fine target for this article to be redirected. And if this happens, a bot will fix the double redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect Found a Telegraph entry at and a CNN article at . They're is nothing else Gbooks, archive sites, cse or WP:BEFORE. Its very very small hobbyist group that is not significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Its a Dicdef.    scope_creep Talk  23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.