- 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 of the debate was delete. If and when some information from reliable sources surfaces, this decision can be revisited. brenneman{L} 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced (WP:V), has 37 Google hits, none of which are pertinent (forum usernames, etc.). Sandstein 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --TBC
??? ??? ??? 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Merge with Stirling. Feezo (Talk) 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Ned Scott 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- retracting my vote for now to make a good faith effort to find an article this could be merged to. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be a hoax. Granted, it wouldn't get many relevant ghits if it was real, but probably more than 0. Grandmasterka 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per norm --DragonWR12LB 06:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am the author of this article. This article is not a hoax. The last edit may have included a bit of frustration on my part with the comments left by the first critic. I can see by your comments that an article only has merit if it receives a certain minimum number of hits on Google. Very scholarly approach. The rest seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the posts of others. The same scholarly search conducted using "gang forward" would produce a significant number of hits. I am a Stirling. The proper usage has been passed down through my family for generations. We are multi-lingual and we are not confined to an understanding of the world limited to Americanized English.Tijuca 08:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)]
- This is all true, and I do feel bad about judging this article so quickly in light of your comment. But even with all that it's just a stub about a phrase. Maybe you could recommend an article it could be merged to, such as some sort of list of sayings or phrases. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you misunderstand my nomination. The article must not go because it does not receive a certain minimum number of hits on Google. It must go because it is unsourced. Being invisible on Google is just a quick-and-dirty indication for made-up stuff (of which Wikipedia unfortunately receives a lot). Consequently, as per Weregerbil infra, I would oppose a merge as well unless it is verified that "Gangfurd" indeed means "gang forward" and is the Scots version of the Stirling motto. Sandstein 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Stirling, obviously. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment merge sounds good — then again this is unverified... The first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Is there any history book or anything at all that mentions this, outside word of mouth within one family? Weregerbil 16:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unveriable, very unlikely search term. Would be a dicdef if it exists. Deizio 00:24, 23 March 2006 (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.