Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay bomb

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The result was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn, no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bomb

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

No real sources. All sources link to fake or archived webpages on alternative sites. Lbparker40 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability; the given sources do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and largely do not exist in any appreciable detail. Those that do are press releases or web archives, user-submitted content without editorial oversight, and not reliable third-party sources.Lbparker40 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? @Lbparker40: are you sure you've nominated the right article? The article you've listed does not match the description you give for deletion. Acebulf (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Make love, not war. Article is properly sourced and BEFORE show ample additional sources, clealrly meeting GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, barely A piece of lore that is well-documented enough and tickles a certain fancy enough to be endlessly repeated, though I have to say it is a bit, um, off-putting when the Weekly World News was the first GBook hit. But sometimes, I guess, they didn't have to make things up. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a good amount of coverage of this spanning at least 8 years based on what I could find, with enough depth to sustain an article as far as I can tell. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -That being said, I could not believe I wasn't reading the Onion. It is well sourced and a bit of urban lore that is notable, even if I can't read it with a straight face. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The description does not match the page, which is not a corporation and satisfies WP:GNG SportingFlyer (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be speedily closed because it clear case of nominating the wrong article mistakenly because the description doesn't match the article entirely. It is about type of bomb not about company and the source description is also completely different from what is actually in the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed I see your points and withdraw my request. Lbparker40 (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2018 (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.