Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam and Steve

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Steve[edit]

Not notable. The information on the expression is not cited, although it sounds reasonable. None of the sources explain anything about it. They just use the expression in one way or another. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no evidence given in the article that this expression was ever used except as a joke.Borock (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It became a joke, but from my past encounters with the phrase, the slogan sentence was not originally intended as a joke in the circles in which it originated (apparently 1970's evangelicals in the U.S.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So let's find some citations. The nominator says there are none in the article, isn't that a reason to attempt to find some rather than to delete? Certainly it is a "joke" or rather better a parody, parody used both by proponents of, and those disparaging, Biblical arguments on homosexually. But so what? If it is notable, and I'd say there's plenty of evidence it is, then we can narrate political humour.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC) See urban dictionary Google tells me the phrase was used in the listed media 13 times just in the last month [1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I basically agree with the preceding comment: The phrase itself sees a fair amount of use, and has given rise to several spin offs and parodies. It could be better coordinated with Anti-LGBT slogans, though... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Scott Mac (Doc). This phrase is pervasive, and not exclusive to religious sources. There have to be sources in the news coverage of this topic. --Oliver Twisted (Talk) 10:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Scott Mac., AnonMoos and OliverTwisted. Whilst missing citations can indeed be a problem, they themselves (or the lack of them thereof) are not a reason to delete an article.. — neuro^(talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in line with the above. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis phrase from a slogan might deserve inclusion in an article about contemporary U.S. gay rights or the evangelical opposition to same, but does not appear to have sufficient in depth coverage (other than use) in reliable and independent references to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Gnews provides plenty of coverage for notability of this slogan. MuZemike (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Because Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, right? CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 09:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I see that this article now has a couple more citations than it did at the time of nomination. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:31, 28 December 2008 (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.