Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren/mary chain letter

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren/mary chain letter

Lauren/mary chain letter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There seems to have been an epidemic of chain letters appearing on video sharing sites lately, but I don't think that this one is really more notable than any other, and not at all worthy of its own article. The article is entirely unsourced, so claims about its 'unique aspects' are rather doubtful, probably original research (and mostly unremarkable anyway - for that matter, who is a 'professional' chain-letter writer, and wouldn't they be able to spell?). Mithent 21:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, no claims to notability, no sources. Corvus cornix 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:N or WP:WEB, seems to consist entirely of original research, and anything beyond the letter's existence is likely to be unverifiable, including the claim that this letter is particularly prominent. EALacey 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and EALacey. JuJube 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because lots of people will receive chain letters and they are a identifiable and verifiable phenomenon. --164.107.223.217 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This user has voted Keep in every AfD he's voted in. JuJube 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So what? If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? --164.107.223.217 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, first of all, this is not a vote, it's a discussion; simply having an opinion that the article should be kept is not helpful. Secondly, if you're saying it's "verifiable", then it'd be very nice if you'd also substantiate this; at the moment, there's no good sources mentioned in the article and as such it's on extremely shaky ground. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, certainly people get chain letters and that they exist is verifiable, and so we have the article chain letter. This particular chain letter, however, does not appear to be more notable than any other, and it would not be sensible to have an article on every chain letter ever. -- Mithent 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a perfectly ordinary chain letter; the "unique aspects" part would need some serious substance to make this work. "...vast use and the unmatched rate at which it has spread"? is it at all comparable to the, uh, Dave Rhodes chain letter? Oh, right, where's the data so we could compare? "unique tendency of appearing several times in the comments of a single video"... welcome to the distant year 2007 - this is what the folks in the Internet industry call "comment spam". In short, the article in no way proves how it's at all remarkable, unique or even interesting. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 30 April 2007 (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.