Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friendship book

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.

Friendship book

Friendship book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Book made by stapling paper together and writing/drawing on it with friends. Non-notable term that lacks verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 96000+ Google hits. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it less-than-notable. That being said, this article could use a rewrite. --Myles Long 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the term sounds vaguely familiar to me. But
    verifiable third party sources. Simply having google hits is not enough... I viewed some of the links, and they referred to a wide variety of items (including scrapbooks with pictures of friends, which is not the same thing). Could you cite some reliable sources attesting to this term's widespread usage? Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep I wish I could say that I have read all 96,000 Google hits, but I have not. Nevertheless, the sheer number suggests notability, and I doubt it would be difficult to locate a source. As with articles about "pen pals", one can imagine that there are magazines that would have a feature on something of this nature. No reason to delete this while awaiting a cite to Parents or Nick or Family Fun or whatever. Mandsford 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This activity/phenomenon certainly exists and appears to be somewhat prolific. There is the concern of lack of sources, but that is not necessarily a catch-all reason for deletion when there is no doubt as to the potential for verifiability. LaMenta3 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per this, but needs more sources to establish notability. If we were going by google hits, every pornstar would be notable Corpx 05:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite and add sources — this is clearly a legitimate topic. Sourcing shouldn't be too difficult. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LaMenta3. Mathmo ^Talk 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to establish notability. Claiming "sources are out there" is not good enough. Jay32183 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The source cited is sufficient, & the concept has been used for centuries. DGG (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently cites zero sources. Jay32183 22:03, 14 August 2007 (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.