Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocker

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 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ocker[edit]

Dicdef already included in wikipedia. The concept itself isn't particularly encyclopedic —Felix the Cassowary 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NAD. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of scope to expand beyond a simple dicdef. An important social construct in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant stereotype in Australian culture, just as important as redneck, scouser etc. WWGB (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Mattinbgn. JJL (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it mate ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. The article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete it in and of itself. Ohms law (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2009 (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.