WP:Articles for deletion/Cinderford rusty pole

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Cinderford rusty pole}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Cinderford rusty pole}})

Per Wikipedia:Recentism, this is a flash-in-the-pan Internet "news" phenomenon and not a notable thing in itself. Skyerise (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• DeleteWikipedia is not a dustbin for ephemeral trivia.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: TOOSOON? The BBC and local Gloucester Live are the only coverages there are. I guess we could have drafted it until later to see if any other coverage happens, but I'm not seeing notability at this point. The article doesn't describe what the pole is, why it's rusty or just about anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Articles like this infuriate me; Wikipedia isn't an archive for every social media blip that ever existed. Wholly non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:Strong Delete: As stated before, the article is hardly noteworthy ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt: as per others and nom. Salt because it seems like it may be recreated (see Sirfurboy's response also). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Should the Cinderford rusty pole stand the test of time and be discussed in reliable sources for an extended period of time, then this article should be restored, but at the moment, this article appears to be created too soon for something that may prove to be a brief fad.--Panian513 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:Not voting but someone removed the AFD on the article. I fixed it :) Toketaa^talk 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::I started a sockpuppet investigation. Seems like there are multiple accounts involved here. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - I wasn't going to !vote on this one as it is a clear enough delete that it didn't need input from me, but in view of this threat from an editor to simply resubmit the article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACinderfordtownassociation&diff=1198671959&oldid=1198671764] there may be a case for salting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. Probably not even worth including at Cinderford.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:Note that both users who were deleting the deletion templates got blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Cinderfordtownassociation] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3AJosheiinnooo&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist]. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::The SPI also found that the accounts deleting the deletion templates and the one that created the article are all socks. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This ridiculously trivial and uninformative "article" is the product of a group of sockpuppets that has violated multiple policies. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that the pole is notable. It's the subject of an ephemeral internet joke, is all. Maproom (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia does not exist to document every passing meme as soon as it is released into the wild without any evidence of lasting notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• DELETE This is actually the only time I don't mentally wrestle with myself on what to suggest. This is clearly not notable. Nor is it news. The user who created the article was blocked for sockpupeteering. Avishai11 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per all of the above - especially how a sockpuppeteer made the joke article. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. It's reported that a similar pipe in Shifnal was Grade II listed in 2023 [https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/telford/shifnal/2023/04/13/rare-victorian-stink-pipe-in-shifnal-given-special-protected-status/]. Here's the listing [https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1484878]. Coverage of the Cinderford Rusty Pole is at present based mainly on comments off social media. There's not much background content on the pole itself and I've not come across serious indepth reviews in reliable sources. It needs more WP:SUSTAINED and detailed coverage to prevent being caught by the provisions of WP:NOTNEWS as a fad. Rupples (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think we need to salt - if there's WP:LASTING coverage it may well become notable. But it's clearly not notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

:Note that a draft article does exist, and it was created by sockpuppets. As Sirfurboy noted, another sock may simply resubmit that article after this one gets deleted. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - No evidence of lasting notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, salt. We don't need articles like this. This is exactly the sort we need to concentrate on removing. Given the threat to recreate, we should salt as well. Jacona (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.