Content deleted Content added
Anturiaethwr (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Signing comment by Anturiaethwr - "" |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* '''Keep''': it's an interesting field, and we're gathering data. Let this grow for a while. No reason for a delete [[User:Pljakobs|Pljakobs]] ([[User talk:Pljakobs|talk]]) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''': it's an interesting field, and we're gathering data. Let this grow for a while. No reason for a delete [[User:Pljakobs|Pljakobs]] ([[User talk:Pljakobs|talk]]) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note.''' I've done a little cleanup and added a "References" section. <font color="Green" face="Palatino Linotype">'''Anturiaethwr'''</font> 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Note.''' I've done a little cleanup and added a "References" section. <font color="Green" face="Palatino Linotype">'''Anturiaethwr'''</font> 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Anturiaethwr|Anturiaethwr]] ([[User talk:Anturiaethwr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anturiaethwr|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 21:07, 21 April 2008
Trash The Dress
- Trash The Dress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Self-explanatory Ziggy Sawdust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. No it isn't. Please provide an actual rationale for why you think it should be deleted, rather than improved. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- quite, this is something that a lot of people derive a lot of pleasure from as a branch of photography. There are four sites around the world dedicated to it. Searching Google for 'Trash The dress' finds these sites. they are there, it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The only rationales I can think of for deletion are WP:N and WP:HOAX. I've found non-trivial mentions in The New York Times, ABC News (slideshow), and the New York Daily News--and that was a very cursory search. Note, however, that these all refer exclusively to destroying one's wedding dress after the ceremony, unlike this article. (That said, the article itself needs wikifying and expansion, and the external links need pruning.) Anturiaethwr 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
- Keep: Anturiaethwr got there ahead of me with sources. Clearly a verifiable and notable subject. Keep, clean up, and move to Trash the Dress -- that miscapitalization bugs me worse than most, for some reason. Maybe that was why the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs expansion per Anturiaethwr, and I would suggest moving it to Trash the dress, but it is a notable phenomenon. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ziggy Sawdust - Can you explain why you think this should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep No proper rationale for deletion given. DarkAudit (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: it's an interesting field, and we're gathering data. Let this grow for a while. No reason for a delete Pljakobs (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note. I've done a little cleanup and added a "References" section. Anturiaethwr 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)