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. Sr 13 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minneagraphers[edit]

Article is about dubious terminology that is unnotable and doesn't seem to exist beyond one person's blog (less than 200 hits on Google, the first of which is this article). Entire article may be linkspam. Amake 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources provided to suggest notability or non-neologistic status of this word. Someguy1221 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is what WP:NEO was written for, with an icky WP:COI/WP:VSCA topping. (See Thump25 (talk · contribs)) No sources other than self-promoting ones, WP:SYN ideas about why it's such a hotbed of accomplished and good-looking talent, all the hallmarks. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above. This is a non-notable neologism at best, full of spam and vanity, self promotional, yadda yadda. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would only apply to people who actually photograph Minneapolis, Minnesota - so odds are, these people probably only live in the general area, or are rich/retired/whatever. This is probably the most far-flung pull of WP:LOCAL I'll ever do. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. If the term becomes truly popular and notable then the article can be recreated with reliable sources, and without the self-promotion.--Absurdist 06:39, 15 July 2007 (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.