Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale the emu
Source: 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dale the emu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable private artwork. Two articles in a local newspaper doesn't equal significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Gale the emu redirects to this article. Whatever the consensus here, it should apply to that as well. LadyofShalott 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Two puff pieces in a free community newspaper in no way constitutes significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per WWGB - notability isn't established here. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails GNG. No coverage past local free newspaper, as appears to be the case with the google news searches Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.