Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow smile


 * 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 keep. Okiefromokla questions? 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow smile

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is unclear. Google hits for it gets only ~6000 hits. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is of course unclear--because of the total and complete lack of sources in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is lacking sources but the sources are there... simple google search showed lots. Article just needs to be wiki'd.  Also appears to satisfy WP:N.  --Pmedema (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pmedema. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not at all impressed by the Google search, which turns up references to the (!) "Glasgow Smile Clinic" (a dentist's office), a band called "The Glasgow Smile", a comment about the Scottish city's snobbery, and other things. The term has only two hits in Google Books; "Chelsea smile" gets 10 hits; but even those have multiple meanings.  I'm gathering that this is a reference to Heath Ledger's Joker.  Maybe this is why the article is unsourced.  Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase appears here and here, both reputable sources. I also know the phrase to be a well-known one in the UK, from personal experience.  However, I'm not convinced of its notability - under which guidelines would it fall? Vizjim (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly notable enough. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The phrase has absolutely no notability. It is not encyclopedic as this maiming may go by any of many competing names and there is nothing to establish the particular acceptance of this title for it; in fact, outside of readers of The Guardian (which is listed above as a respectable source and is anything but a respectable source) and a handful of criminals, immigrants, and people who pay a great deal of attention to them living in Chelsea, I would suggest that no one much else has ever heard of the expression. That most of the content of the article is inherently non-encyclopedic content, i.e., which movies have something that might in any way have any makeup that makes an actor look like he has been at some time maimed in this way is icing on the cake for a swift deletion. DvonD (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian is widely considered a respectable source, regardless of your own personal opinion. Also, just because you have never heard of something, doesn't mean it is not notable. This is a fairly well-known phrase, and just needs sourcing better. Definitely notable enough. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly notable enough for an article and is referenced many times in fiction. Google hits are not an accurate indication of notability and it is getting tiresome that so many people are using them to attempt to prove a point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could definitely use some expansion, though. Uvaduck (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rather well-known. Rather concerned at User:DvonD's seeming bad faith. I know it better as Chelsea Smile, but then I live in London. Rather an archaic form of mutilation. Brilliantine (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (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.