Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geordie Tuft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geordie Tuft
Not notable Flup 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I was the person who originally prodded this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non Notable TO11MTM
- No vote Rather humourous but non-notable -- Librarianofages 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As Cordy said, it fails WP:BIO, but perhaps someone should consider moving it to the funnies section. Black-Velvet 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: if deleted, Image:Geordie1 issue12.jpg should be deleted at same time. -- Infrogmation 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I've cleaned up the beginning of article, using [1], the only clearly reliable source I could find. The article seems to have used this as its source. I'm not convinced that this is a reliable source. If it is, the article could be expanded. This is another potentially reliable source that could be used. I'd like to have a Northern Ireland based editor make the call on whether those are reliable sources, but I'm dubious or I'd have already used them. GRBerry 01:58, 30 June 2006 (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.
