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 Looks like the snow's come early this year. Added a "citations needed" template. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

irrelevant/self-publicity Lucas Ayala (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On a daily basis, we see delete votes here at AfD on the grounds that the entries listed actually belong in Urban Dictionary instead of Wikipedia. If that's not a solid proof of notability, I don't know what is. The article may need cleanup, but not deletion. The nom's account was created earlier today, so I guess he/she didn't know that this is just one of those rare articles whose notability goes without saying. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a top ranked web site. Numerous articles written about it in the mainstream press, e.g. this article from AP. I'm expecting WP:SNOW. Pburka (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I usually suspect something pointy when the first edit a user makes is an AfD nomination (OK, it was his second. His first was creating the AfD on his userpage). There's ample reliable sources (want more? here.). And this is not self publicity as it was created back in June 2003 by an editor with no links to the website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep Plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB, pick your poison. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, clearly notable subject that has been covered in multiple sources. I worry that this is a bad-faith nom, due to the nonspecific nomination statement and lack of other edits by nominator. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, yes, but... It would be a good idea to add some of those plenty of or multiple scurces that refer to the subject. One of the measures of notability is coverage by independent sources. The way the article reads now (one independent footnote, and tone of article), I can see where the nominator would conclude that this was unsourced, "self-publicity". Mandsford (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not a "bad-faith" person, excuse me if i made a mistake --Lucas Ayala (talk) 00:18, 20 July 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.