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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Jubilee

[edit]

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

As the article notes, this term is only a presumption of what an 80th anniversary might be called; there has never been such a thing, and no supporting refs could be found to support it or affirm notability. It is a neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't checked, but the article itself says no sources exist, and I'm inclined to believe it. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madeup, Neologism, no sources. Barring twitter, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have said to redirect to Jubilee, but that is only a disambiguation page. As there are no sources (even according to the article), this is an unreferenced, non-notable dictionary definition. LadyofShalott 02:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced neologism, that seems to have been made up with no sources backing it up. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources to support the article. One source is a primary source. Also the notability of the event is in question. →TSU ^tp* 12:18, 17 June 2012 (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.