Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazy Ramadi

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Ramadi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A five-year-old flash-in-the-pan spoof of a "Saturday Night Live" skit -- one of an endless number of spoofs that turned up. Years later, the notability of this spoof has disappeared and its relevance is nonexistent. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Decent coverage CTJF83 chat 18:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really -- the most recent press citation was from 2007. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the time frame makes a difference. CTJF83 chat 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're correct, it does not. The articles in your search show significant coverage in reliable sources that push the topic at the GNG. Also note the topic is also found covered through Google Books[1] and is written of in Google Scholar,[2] showing the tpic as having escaped having only press coverage . Guideline does not demand that coverage be ongoing to the present. See: WP:NTEMP. Article needs to be sourced though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar results show that this is more than just a flash-in-the-pan news item, and passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own comments above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 22 September 2010 (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.