Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gools


 * 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 to tag (game). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gools

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

Don't you just hate it when an article doesn't fit neatly into a CSD criteria? Well, this is a textbook case of that. No refs, no verifiability, even if it did have either of those it probably wouldn't meet the criteria for inclusion for this type of article. flaminglawyer 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, looks like I found another reason: WP:NEO. As a side note, the prod was removed without reason. flaminglawyer 01:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Flaming Lawyer. I was the one who put the WP:PROD on this one if I recall correctly. FingersOn  Roids  02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article also seems to be borderline A1. Firestorm  Talk 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsure in among the crud is some evidence the term is regularly used in connection with tag. Merge? StarM  04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect to tag (game). As per StarM, there is enough evidence of the term's definition, but it's quite weak and would be better suited in the Tag article. --Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2009 (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.