Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slam book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Slam book

Slam book (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for way too long! The closest thing to a reference is the connection to the movie Mean Girls but the book in that isn't even called a "Slam book" but apparently a "burn book". I can't find any encyclopedic sources for this subject. As it stands there is no verifiability. It may be that these books do exist but without references we have to assume that the analysis is pure original research. DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Appears to be original research and a neologism of some sort as well. TN‑X-Man 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but source. Numerous Google Books results indicate there are substantive sources available for this adolescent culture topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the phrase is in use but does not seem to have a consistent meaning that enables us to write about it in a coherent, encyclopedic way, hence the confused mess that the article is currently in. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That is not a news article about slam books, it is a news article about something else that mentions slam books briefly, in passing. It might give us some clues to infer what a slam book is but it doesn't get us any closer to an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need to do more than define terms. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep substantial enough for an article, additional references will be scattered but should be findable.. If "burn book" is a synonym, make a redirect from that. The preferred title can be discussed on the talk page, not here. DGG (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is what I thought back in January but I didn't find any good references and, after almost 6 months tagged as unreferenced, you have to wonder if there is any hope of getting an acceptable quality of article out of this. I don't mind being proved wrong here but I don't want the result of this AfD to be a Keep but for nobody to ever do any work to bring the article up to standard. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)