Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signspotting


 * 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 Zunaid says, no prejudice against an article being created with reliable sources that discuss the term (as opposed to using it). --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signspotting

 * — (View AfD)

I can find no reference to this term unrelated to the book of the same name. Pjbflynn 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems legit to me. → &ensp; J A R E D &ensp;(t)&ensp; 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, has potential. Battle Ape 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT ("signspotting is a relatively new phenomena...") and for lack of "multiple third-party reliable sources" to prove the notability of this hobby as a so-named phenomenon. Pictures of funny signs collected and published in a book or on a website doesn't make "signspotting" a phenomenon in and of itself, it merely means that some people like collecting pictures of funny signs. Like the nominator, I can ONLY find ref's to the book and the website in this Google search.  Zun aid  © Please rate me at Editor Review!  14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism - doesn't pass the Google test. SteveBaker 09:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Question If this does get deleted, if i manage to find a few more sources and information in the future would i be allowed to start it again? Simply south 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer: yes you may so long as it is not simply a "reposting of already deleted content". In other words, the article should be better in some way, be that in the form of extra info, extra references, whatever.  Zun aid  © Please rate me at Editor Review!  12:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Simply south 13:12, 21 December 2006 (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.