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


 * 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 Non Admin Close D u s t i talk to me 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia DiggyG (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep No substantive reason for deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete Nothing but cruft. Jmlk  1  7  20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If it satisfies guidelines for inclusion, why not? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes, your nomination constitutes voting (some people use the term !vote because it isn't a vote but a discussion but I find that term pretentious). As for saying that well-sourced trivia is "still trivia"- everything is trivia to someone. One person might consider 19th century US Congressmen to be unintersting (certainly some of them didnt have much of any influence on history). Others might consider any articles about pop culture to be uninteresting. This is why the core content policies focus not on the nature of the content but whether it meets WP:V. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep - I can understand the arguments for deletion - the incident isn't verifiable, and it is trivial and gossippy. If the phrase remained just a blog post item and an inside joke among Deadspin readers, I'd agree, delete it. But it passes the notability test given the traction it's gained in mainstream media. --Mosmof (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the guidelines at WP:NOTE popularity is not the same thing as notability; furthermore "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" I encourage you to check the sourcing on this article before you vote; half the links are dead, and the other half point to articles that do not meet the significant coverage criteria.DiggyG (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point had nothing to do with popularity, and I don't think I implied it. The phrase *has* received not insignificant amount of mainstream coverage (there should be more coverage with Leitch's new book coming out) - I don't have the time to go digging right now, but I'd be happy to help if the lack of independent sourcing is your beef. Mosmof (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we are going to keep this (I'm leaning towards keep but not that strongly), it will be because it's a meme. The story behind it may or may not be true, but that's kind of irrelevant. Ultimately it has little to do with Berman and what makes it noteable is not Berman but the fact that it's a widespread meme. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: I've tried to improve the introduction to reflect the reason this is noteable. 11:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Edit2: Or to put it a different way, the article is about an internet phenomenon, 'You're with me, leather' not a pick-up-line alledly used by Chris Berman 12:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well put. faithless   (speak)  09:47, 25 February 2008 (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.