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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weegie[edit]

Weegie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was speedied, then turned into a redirect (which is probably what it should be), but the redirect kept getting reverted. Now de-prodded without rationale. Non-notable. At best a possible addition to Wiktionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete, per WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Dictionary definition of slang term, not a notable concept, inadequately sourced. No potential for a useful article. Jellyman (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While clearly a term in common use in Glasgow and beyond, there isn't the substance of an encyclopaedic article here. Attempts to leave this entry as a redirect haven't worked. WP:NAD applies and there is already a wiktionary entry for this term, so transwiki wouldn't work either. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nicely summarised by User:Jellyman above. A poorly sourced article, hanging a lot on a brief mention relating to a former Hibs manager, and I too am not seeing a basis for a sustainable article. Already sufficiently covered in a line at List_of_British_regional_nicknames#E_-_G. AllyD (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article forms the seed of something that could be great with a little work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.78.35 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a good article, I like it, let it stay! 31.177.99.1 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Should remain and see if it can be improved. 47.60.241.14 (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a good article with lots of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.157.60 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its important that people can use wiki as a source for info, without weegie article it it would be major omission, YES YES Onel5969 settle the hell down this is my first edit to wiki also, as a weegie 47.60.195.75 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one. This is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep and expand. 77.208.42.168 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By now no one probably really needs to check IPs contributions. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated Comment - To save confusion I've moved Onels replies down and indented them as it made the !votes seem as if they were all by Onel, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dictionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Delete This is not a notable, encyclopaedic topic. It merits at most a dictionary entry. Mcewan (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hard to believe this is up for deletion, Article needs some work, but by its nature is encyclopedic content. 73.229.6.222 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is at best a dictionary entry rather than a topic for an encyclopedia and notability has not been shown. Dunarc (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (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.