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 Keep. After examining the arguments, including the external links provided, I have come to the conclusion that the points made by those !voting "Keep" are more influential than those !voting "Delete", particularly those regarding the tagging of the article with ((Unreferenced)) or a related template ~ Anthøny 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vexel[edit]

Non-notable and unsourced article (it even admits it in the article body!). Kargath64 06:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search brings out no reliable hits for this article. This article is also neologism in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I don't currently see any reliable sources in the search, there are "about" 150,000 results according to google (and yes, I know how reliable that figure is, but I've clicked through 300 of them and there are still more to come). A random selection suggests that the majority are about this topic (with a small number concerned with a vehicle manufacturer, and another small quantity concerned with something called a "bill of exchange" that's used in Russia). This large number of articles suggests notability within the community, and given that notability, I feel the existing sources (while self published) are adequate to ensure verifiability. JulesH 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has anyone even put a sources tag on it? Perhaps give it time, or actually find sources you approve of. This is genuine, and this article is quite well-written and intriguing. Give it a little time, or better still, do some of the work. It's not like this is non- content, it's informative.Merkinsmum 11:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability now. I looked through google news and found nothing relevant. There's just not enough notability to keep the article now Corpx 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has lots of Google hits. Google News is entirely the wrong place to search for this term. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits does not equal notability Corpx 21:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Attempt to introduce new neologism, as even admitted in the article text. Many of the Google hits you'd be getting are just from deviantART's metadata.
Weak Keep - it seems the community at vexel.org has about 6000 members (how many active, etc I don't know), so that seems to be an active community interested in an emerging art form. It seems to me not a small community for an emerging form, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and Request treatment at Wikinews. Articles of this kind help to delineate the boundaries of Wikipedia versus her sister projects. The vexel concept as an emerging tool for artistic expression is simply in too early a stage to warrant encyclopedic treatment; as noted at http://news.deviantart.com/article/27110/ (probably the closest to a reliable source currently available for this concept) the definition of the term and the how-to around use of the graphic method are still a matter of debate ... it is an emerging art technique. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 27 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.