Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save the date

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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most google hits are websites to order the cards. ~~Secondly, the article seems to have a copyright-problem (Duplication detector)~~ The Banner talk 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With good secondary sources it would pass the GNG, but I didn't find any. Even though its usage in American English is evident, I don't think it qualifies as per WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If this idiom lasts, I expect that a more appropriate article title would be save-the-date notice rather than an imperative sentence. —Ringbang (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the blog copied from Wikipedia; that text was in the article earlier than the date of the blog post. (That fact has no bearing on notability, only on the apparent copyright issue.) Cnilep (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a WP:DICTDEF and this is hardly an idiomatic expression that might need explaining so it's not even suitable for the Wiktionary. If the topic is actually trying to be "save the date" card, that probably fails WP:GNG. The most I could find about it is stuff at the level of definition with some advice how to make these which wouldn't be suitable per WP:NOTHOWTO, e.g. [1][2]. A paragraph at wedding invitation should suffice for the concept of this "pre-invitation". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2014 (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.