Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sage (internet) (2nd nomination)

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 — no reliable sources presented which support notability. Linking to a Google news search is not providing relevant sources. --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sage (Internet)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sage (internet)
• Articles for deletion/Sage (internet) (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Sage (internet) (Second nomination)

Sage (Internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No effort has been put into sourcing it since it's last nomination, plenty of original research is also present. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to Sage Telecom: No reason for a separate article as the Internet wing isn't notable, neither is Sage internet service to begin with. Remove the OR, and move the rest over to the parent company. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: NN, unsourced by RS (or any sources) for verifiability, and a bit of OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it's interesting and informative. Does need sources, etc. Also, Rjd0060 apparently didn't read the article as Sage (internet) is not an internet service or wing of Sage Telecom, but an internet forum term. --.Tom. (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right, I didn't see that page. I must have went to a different page by mistake. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism with no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I particularly liked the rationale from the following comment from the last AFD. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

“ Keep. It may niche in the Western world (i.e. 4chan), but to 10,000,000 daily Japanese users on 2chan, surely it's notable. Remember, just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worth keeping. --SevereTireDamage 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ”

• Comment. Um, can you prove that it's notable, though? If it's notable in Japan...the sources don't have to be in english. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• At the moment? No, it's 3:30 A.M. EST and I'm studying for a math test tomorrow. Hopefully someone else will come along with some concrete sources. I do note that Googling sage 2channel yields ~13k results, although I'm quite aware that's not a reason to keep by itself. In other news, there's a WikiFur, "the furry encyclopedia"? Crazy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• How about 下げる 掲示板 and 下げる 2ch? - Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My browswer can't even render the text on those pages, but I'll trust you if you say so. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 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.