Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash The Dress

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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that the subject is notable and also comments on the absence of a deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trash The Dress

Self-explanatory Ziggy Saw dust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comment. Looks like that's been done. Anturiaethwr 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]
Speedy Keep No proper rationale for deletion given. DarkAudit (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)
Keepsufficient references by now to establish notability.DGG (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to notable and sourced. A more thorough nomination would be appreciated next time though. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saw an article about this in PDN's annual issue on wedding photography, and put it on my mental to-do list. Glad someone beat me to it. I've added a reference to PDN (available in print and on line by subscription). Fg2 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per lack of a rationale for deletion. It was also AfDed about half a day after creation, during which time it's also been tagged a COI and notability concern without any talk page posts. Has already been moved to Trash the dress for proper capitalization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (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.