Tickle fight : The references show no evidence of notability for a standalone article.  Although there are several sources, I believe they make either passing mention of the topic, discuss one-off events or appear in non-reliable publications.  We have no proper discussion of this concept in reliable journals or other publications.  The article itself has little encyclopaedic value, largely reporting on single incidents where notable people had a tickle fight.  March OfThe Greyhounds 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions .  March OfThe Greyhounds 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tickle .  Article fails to meet GNG and I think would need to be fully rewritten to even begin to appear encyclopaedic.  CoconutOctopus talk 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is fetish content in disguise and it simply has no use here.  Nate • ( chatter ) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just because article doesn't have scientific publiations, doesn't mean it's not worthy as Wikipedia article.  There are plenty of examples, where articles don't have scentific publications.  Food fight , snowball fight , water fight and pillow fight , should also be deleted, if this article gets deleted.  -- Pek ( talk ) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No one has made any mention of scientific publications here.  March OfThe Greyhounds 09:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought that's what you ment.  If so, why are these sources non-reliable publications then?  -- Pek ( talk ) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the publications like USA Today and Slate are reliable, but the coverage they give to this topic isn't substantial.  But source 4 is a church blog for example, not a suitable source.  If USA Today or Slate had an article called "Has the Phenomenon of the Tickle Fight Gone too Far?" with a full article or something, you might be getting somewhere with sourcing.  But just a mention or two of tickle fights in an article about tickling isn't enough.  March OfThe Greyhounds 09:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prefer redirect or merge to deletion .  This feels like something that definitely is known , but I'm not sure yet whether reliable sources exist that contain non-trivial coverage of tickle fights.  Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I'm also not getting the impression a proper WP:BEFORE was done here.  - B RAINULATOR 9 ( TALK ) 19:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a little disappointed that you suggest I didn't conduct a proper BEFORE.  I began discussing this article's notability two weeks before nominating for deletion and later opted to redirect the article.  Above, I provided an outline of why I don't think this is a notable topic.  So, that seems like a bit of a needless jab, honestly.  March OfThe Greyhounds 20:58, 13 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect