Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flocabulary

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; WP:SNOW comes into play here. Picaroon 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flocabulary

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

This appears to be simply an advertisment with slight WP:A or WP:N a work in progress. Christopher Jost 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I've not yet completed writing the article and, as such, more citations and a few more sections are coming. However, if the article appears to be an advertisement, then I welcome anyone to trim out any POV. I'm not sure where you're seeing WP:A problems. Your claims of a WP:N violation are understandable, but I think that notability is established by the amount of publicity the project has recieved. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems an encyclopedic topic (just about) - Keep and tag for improvement. Vizjim 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic. --DorisHノート 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written, enough coverage to show notability, and better referenced than the vast majority of existing content. -- Mikeblas 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable per the sources linked (as well as the coverage referenced on the site's press page). Could use a little copy-editing in spots, but I don't see this as "simply an advertisement". JavaTenor 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well attributed, but spammy - clean it up. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would this article be appropriate for inclusion into the Hip-hop and/or Eduction WikiProjects? I think it could be improved with help from others, though I am not a member of either of those two WikiProjects and so won't slap the WikiProject templates on the talk page without advise. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's still a bit spammy, but attribs are enough. Realkyhick 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability proven with citations. - Freechild 07:12, 30 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.