Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash dropping


 * 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   delete as non-notable neologism  nancy  (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Flash dropping

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. I couldn't find any sources for this activity. nneonneo talk 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. Citations will be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyallman (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be a neologism. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone manages to find sources on this, fails WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Proper procedure is not being followed here. Article was started by a newbie editor and four minutes later entered AfD. WP:PROD is the process for ensuring an article is improved or eliminated. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles are tagged for deletion minutes after they've been created all the time, frequently using speedy deletion tags which results in their removal hours or even minutes later. We do not have a policy which says that Proposed Deletion must be used before AfD.  In fact, the primary purpose of proposed deletion was simply to lighten the load from the AfD system, not to give a better chance of articles being improved.  Stopping an AfD process and replacing it with Prod, so that if the Prod tag is removed the article must be AfD'd again, would be ridiculous.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy works for obvious violations, and prod works if the author doesn't care enough to remove the tag. If the author cares, then the article should be given a chance for a few days. It's rude and silly to randomly run authors through a bureaucratic wringer. If the author removes a prod tag, then presumably the article is being improved in the same timeframe as the AfD discussion would be taking place. Discussing in-progress articles is a major waste of time. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Providing more time for improvement or reference, i can't find anything personally but it should be given longer under WP:PROD --Tefalstar (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD does not give an article more time than AfD. Both of them result in an article being deleted after about 5 days. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable neologism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Article was AfDed when it was less than five minutes old. It's less than a day old now. The creator has asked for time to work on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are still 4 1/2 days left to improve the article (provided this nomination doesn't snowball). I tagged this article for AfD because I didn't feel it could ever assert notability, and a cursory Google search turned up nothing. If reliable sources are found to establish the notability of this activity, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. nneonneo talk 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't have a policy requiring articles to be perfect within five days of creation. I'm not in favor of waiting forever, but five days is a bit ridiculous. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be perfect at all. All it needs is a reliable source to prove this activity has some notability. If even a single reliable source comes up, then I will certainly reconsider the nomination. nneonneo talk 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: neologism with no evidence of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a technological neologism, one would expect there to be copious Internet sources available. However, a Google search for yielded no relevant hits in the first few pages besides this article, suggesting that either the name is incorrect or this fad hasn't caught on quite yet. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. The only sources found for "flash dropping" relate to the price of memory it would seem. And while nominating for AfD while an article is new may be slightly bitey, it doesn't invalidate the nomination. (Aside from biting, we usually leave articles alone long enough for sources to be found, but in the case, it doesn't look like there are any to be found). B figura  (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep for now, to see if it gets improved. It is true, as said above, that articles often get nominated for various forms of deletion immediately after they've been started. It's a bad practice, hostile to new-comers. The thing to have done with this one is to have placed tags for notability and sources, and given a friendly advice to the author. Obviously, if nothing gets improved, it will have to go, but it's unfair to a newby to ask for it by an AfD, rather than a tag and a note. In my personal opinion, doing so should rank as BYTE and failure to AGF. I know that wasn't the nom's intent--I'm not blaming him, but the practice. DGG (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. No reliable sources.  I vaguely recall something about some band leaving flash drives with their songs in the bathrooms of their concerts (or something like that), but it wasn't called "flash dropping" and hardly constitutes a movement of any kind. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:11, 28 April 2008 (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.