Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're with me, leather

You're with me, leather

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia DiggyG (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pick-up line supposedly used once, and even then it's debatable whether it was really used or not. Not even close to an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep There appear to be reliable sources discussing the incident and phrase. I'd rather no one pay attention to this sort of idiocy but that isn't an argument against having an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator has not given an acceptable reason for deletion. I don't like it doesn't cut it. faithless (^speak) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gossip, it belongs on a fanpage or a anti-Berman page, but it is not something that is the least bit encyclopedic. It's trivia of the lowest order: unconfirmed, and probably unprovable. DiggyG (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantive reason for deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Content not suitable" is not a reason to delete (WP is not censored). Article is referenced and satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but cruft. Jmlk17 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on that? It appears to be well-sourced. Simply labeling something cruft isn't a reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Cruft is defined as something indiscriminate or trivial. This single incident certainly qualifies as trivial. Yes it's well-sourced, but its still trivia. Does every sordid moment in the personal lives of individual sportscasters rate an encyclopedia entry? StudierMalMarburg (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it satisfies guidelines for inclusion, why not? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sexist and reeking of the patriarchy, but it's a notable pop culture article. Articles with lots of reliable, real world sources are not cruft. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sourced trivia is still trivia. btw a question for those in the know: do I vote? or have I already voted by nominating the article in the first place?DiggyG (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless if it was used by Berman or not, the meme has legs of its own, and the article is well-sourced in that regard. Neier (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The content is informative and well sourced, and if combined with an anti-Berman or Deadspin article, would overwhelm the article. Phyrkrakr (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]