Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-ed sleepover


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Co-ed sleepover
Delete This page is is WP:OR, at the very least Aaronw 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly trivial, probably some-ones high school essay. Camillus (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Royboycrashfan. Rory 0 96 03:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 04:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Corbin Simpson 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be Original Research and is certainly not neutral. VirtualSteve 05:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Camillus Ruby 06:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some credible sources for its content are provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Jeff Q. I don't find the subject or the content unencyclopedic, but it's hard to imagine finding sources in the near future. --Allen 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've changed my mind.  Because there is such a huge world of sociology literature out there that I know nothing about, I don't feel comfortable predicting that no one could find sources for this.  It does need sources, though. --Allen 07:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to inter-gender sleepover, which is in actual use. Wiwaxia 07:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Allen. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  08:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, OR -- Astrokey44 |talk 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, orgies are not "less-than-legitimate". Also, it's original research. While it may be a legitimate topic in a sociology paper, the article gives no evidence that the term is accepted in the field. It also does not have any references to back up its assertions. It is just observation and speculation. -- Kjkolb 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic.Meritus 14:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Allen --New Progressive 17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom and most of the above, the last paragraph is kindof an attack also. -- light darkness (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "but mostly because I don't get invited to that sort of party". It's apparent original research, uncited and there is a lot in there which says somebody made it up in school one day. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like OR but I'm not convinced it can't be improved and cited. There are better ways of dealing with this than deletion.... Mi kk er ... 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, this page is very strange and I don't think it should be here. --Liface 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete informative but unencyclopedic. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * '''From http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/02/experts_and_parents_on_dealing_with_teenagers/:

"Get to know the parents of your child's friends. Talk frankly with them about safety, limits, and supervision at parties. Know ahead of time if they share your views on underage drinking, smoking, co-ed sleepovers, and other issues." Wiwaxia 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, real phenomenon. Kappa 10:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Some comments: First, that newspaper article does not actually substantiate much of what this article says. Second, a newspaper column is probably not a reliable source.  Third, the term "co-ed" is almost exclusively used in North America, elsewhere a different term is used.  Fourth, most of what that newspaper article says is applicable to any sleepover including teens.  So, this seems to me to have the wrong title, a lot of unverified content (who has figures for the number of times a single gay man is invited to otherwise all-girl sleepovers?) and reads like original research.  The wrong article in the wrong place, in other words.  Deleting this does not preclude someone from writing a much better article on the same thing. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is unverifiable content, you can remove it with the 'edit' button without going through AFD. Also there is a 'move' button for articles which could have better titles. Kappa 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yebbut, moving it and blanking it (which is what's required) doesn't do much for the 'pedia. There is not one single fact in there which does not appear to me to be either a statement of opinion rather than documented fact, or a generic comment about sleepovers.  I'm tempted just to redirect to sleepover and leave it at that. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete POV drivel and unencyclopaedic. Maustrauser 11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 15:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Avi 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, article has nothing encyclopaedic to say (they're sleepovers with both sexes, rest is waffle). -- Mithent 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is pure gold -- Barbara Osgood 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and file under 'stating the bleeding obvious'. --kingboyk 15:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Uvaduck 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research Chad 19:01, 15 February 2006 (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.