Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Introduce Prophet Mohammed Day

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Introduce Prophet Mohammed Day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable advertising campaign. At the time of nominating this there is nothing on the linked site, http://mohammedday.com/, except for information on Joomla A search for this turns up nothing in the way of reliable sources. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable advertising campaign and "internet phenomenon". —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This campaign start just a day back. You can now check the website http://mohammedday.com/ and Facebook page http://facebook.com/Mohammed.Day Khan.found (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, the fact that it only started a day back makes it most definitely not notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. The title doesn't bring up a single news article on a search of Google News. Maybe it will be notable in the future but it isn't now. I think it's essentially an oversight by the WP:CSD policy that this doesn't qualify for A7. OlYeller^Talktome 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The absence of any coverage in reliable sources suggests this concept is not notable. EuroPride (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable sources Hedonologist (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly original research and no coverage in reliable sources has been produced to document notability. __meco (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to pile on, but WP:RS and WP:GNG. Joal Beal (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that this day has already passed - it was May 20 - and it generated absolutely no notice outside of facebook and youtube and, oh yes, this Wikipedia article. So it was not just non-notable - it was pretty much non-existent. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.