Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black is the new white

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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black is the new white (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Merger proposal to The new black expired. Subject is not notable enough to justify standalone article. ninety:one 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The New black, nothing really worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic of the article clearly fails guidelines for notablity. Drawn Some (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This expression has been used in major media sources, which are used as sources for the article. I think there is more public interest in this than many topics with WP articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use is not description and documentation. And until something is documented (in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources) then it may not have an article, whatever the level of public interest may be. The world must have already documented things for them to be included here. Interest in the heretofore undocumented does not negate our Wikipedia:No original research rule. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete True, it has been used in reliable sources but is hasn't gotten "significant coverage" as required by WP:Notable. Maybe it will in the future, but until then better just redirect to the other article. Borock (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This information is just made up.--NovaSkola (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into Barack Obama. It's very short and hardly worthy of its own article, but it does have reliable sources and therefore should be merged. Clem (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (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.