Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuddle duddle

From 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddle duddle (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)

This article covers a single politician's gaff which had little to no lasting impact. No sign that "fuddle duddle" carries any significance beyond this one event, has not entered normal usage. –dlthewave 04:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to just cover this within our article on Trudeau? –dlthewave `
  • Keep. As trivial as this may seem to the uninitiated, it really did generate enough coverage to clear WP:GNG — and it did have a lasting impact, as demonstrated by the fact that the current prime minister referenced the incident in a speech 44 years later and people still knew what he was talking about. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (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.