Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugarelly


 * 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. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 07:42Z 

Sugarelly

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an article I created myself last summer, although I do not actually want the article deleted as such, so do not attempt to speedily delete the article. I would, however, like to generate discussion about whether it is a valid topic for inclusion. Before commenting to keep, delete or something else, read the article itself, its talk page, and try the Google test. The term returns quite a few Google hits independent of Wikipedia, although it's difficult to say how many of these would be reliable sources - most are peronal websites. Before defaulting to delete, read the goals of WikiProject Countering systematic bias - sugarelly is a historical invention, and will doubtless show up less in Google than recent trends. I think this article would fit in fine to merge with an article on early twentieth century children's culture in Scotland or something less specific. Also, it was notable as the primary subject of an Oor Wullie cartoon from the 1940s.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete Not verifiable. ffm   ✎ talk   13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ISBN for book added.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, confirmed by a handful of Google Books hits. --Dhartung | Talk 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I think the name is wrong (see its talk page) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Possibly notable, perhaps? Sr13 (T|C) 02:13, 18 April 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.