Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packing the magnet


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:19Z 

Packing the magnet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per avoid neologisms & no original research. Seems to be a protologism as I can't find any uses of this term via Google search. Cacophony 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely a phrase in the public discourse. If a google search is your criterion for a phrase that carries meaning, this website is destined to fall out of fashion. This phrase arose shortly after Charles in Charge was cancelled from prime time television. I can vouch for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltyr (talk • contribs) aka User:Ttlsg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Motherg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Yessm(talk)(contribs)


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source. Please provide attribution from a reliable source.  Refer to Citing sources if you have any questions about how to cite your sources.  You might also want to read Notability, which states: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.   Cacophony 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - WP:V issues. Google gives absolutely nothing on this subject: . Saltyr, unless you can provide a reliable source, this clearly fails WP:NEO. Part Deux 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Part deux. Edison 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and WP:ATT --Haemo 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, obviously Non-Notable NBeale 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The one actual source on the page (slang dictionary) doesn't refer to the term at all. Suriel1981 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems to be entirely non-notable.  . V .  [Talk 21:30, 6 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.