Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Slang

: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. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Sexy Slang]]=

:{{la|Sexy Slang}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Sexy Slang}})

Contested PROD, no evidence of notability in independent media. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So adding sources of notability from independent media should prevent this article from deletion? User talk: Sampack 4:49 AM April 6 2011 (EST)

:That's the general idea; please feel free to add sources and note it here. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:Sources added: Bloomberg Businessweek, Fox Business, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, St. Petersburg Times, and Ebony Magazine. -Sampack (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • undecided does The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch [http://www.frequency.com/video/sexy-slang-on-big-idea-with-donny/4073030] count as a substantial mention if so then I guess I am in the keep column otherwise delete. I couldn't really find anything beyond their own press links [http://sexyslang.com/asseenin.html]Tetron76 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioned in Bloomberg Businessweek and Fox Business. Needs improvement, but notable. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on above sources, plus [http://books.google.com/books?id=lkkvcumYMtcC&pg=PA101&dq=%22sexy+slang%22&hl=en&ei=reWcTaL3Eoy8sQPvytT7Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22sexy%20slang%22&f=false Ebony Magazine] (passing), [http://www.tampabay.com/features/books/bedroom-book-speaks-in-sexy-slang/1149121 St. Petersburg Times] (more substantial). --joe deckertalk to me 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep (If my vote counts) I believe that this article is worth noting. With the inclusion of notable sources that have been added this article should be considered reliable. -Sampack (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • delete I'm not sure what priority board-games like these have. It's hard to gauge their encyclopedic value in terms of a global audience. Theo10011 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources  Chzz  ►  02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.