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.
Seeing no in depth coverage (in fact very few mentions that would pass the RS test), and as a record unlikely to have lasting notability (after all it will only be famous until a bigger one is made).
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Over half the sources are primary, and thus do not establish notability, so what in depth coverage is left?
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - The coverage in ABC and The Guinness Book of World Records are sufficient to establish notability. --
Rogerthat94 (
talk) 06:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The coverage is all trivial and in passing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
T. Canens (
talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep world record setting fork. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- a tourist attraction and permanent exhibit. The article is sufficiently well sourced to be retained.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)reply
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.