Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion victim

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion victim

Fashion victim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is half dictionary definition, half personal essay. Calliopejen 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; violates WP:NOT --Mhking 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:A AlfPhotoman 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see why this cant be kept, its a commonly used phrase so I dont think violates WP:A. I do think it could do with some re-writing so that it does not read so much like an essay and therefore violating WP:NOT but its easily salvagable. --PrincessBrat 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep - this is a difficult one. If it gets cleaned up and properly referenced, it might become a worthwhile article. HagenUK 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A valid subject for an article. It could do with some more alignment with Wiki conventions but it seems to me an intelligently presented base for further edits. --Nonnymouth 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A few minutes' searching does not turn up any good sources, so it is just an essay. Without the essay, you have a non-notable neologism. --Mus Musculus 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Author] Shocked by my article's proposed deletion and spurred on by the legitimate criticism, I have added references and sources. --Keygrippa 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I stand corrected--looks good now. Sorry, Keygrippa. Calliopejen 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)*Keep. That's OK Calliopejen, my mum has been very supportive on the phone and has reassured me that it is quite normal to be criticised on Wikipedia. I won't mind if the article is deleted. --Keygrippa 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think WP:NEO is the appropriate policy and this article seems to meet the reliable source requirement. Seems to meet WP:A now. Although it needs more sourcing and those 4 lines need to be sourced. --Quirex 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Atlant 00:59, 17 March 2007 (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.