Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Cleese

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 was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Cleese

Mount Cleese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a part of a rubbish dump. It has received some publicity in New Zealand recently, although the article fails to explain why. The section of Palmerston North#Dump dealing with the dispute between John Cleese and the city is a better explanation, and sufficient coverage. We don't need an article as well. Article was prodded but the prod was removed without the article being improved. gadfium 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree with the redirect votes below.-gadfium 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Palmerston North#Dump. I'm tempted to insult some municipalities now, in case they start naming things after me. --Aim Here 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but redirect as above, unless sufficient reliable non-local sources are cited to indicate that this has independant notability. DES (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Has gained news coverage here (NZ), but not notable enough for its own article. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Like wise, not notable enough for it's own article. --Random Say it here! 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. I have fixed the redirect. The section is "Dump" not "dump". --Bduke 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. While it has attached some coverage, it is not of sufficient duration to warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Kahuroa 07:43, 28 May 2007 (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.