Deletion of List of Apple Inc. slogans

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: Apple advertising slogans are a notable part of pop culture and a list of then fully comports with the  policy. Admittedly, the article lacks sourcing, but that's a separate issue. Wikipedia's verifiability policy allows (if not encourages) the deletion of most of the article pending proper sourcing, but the topic is notable and a list should be kept even if it has to be stubbed for the time being
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: per .  No doubt sources can be found to substantiate the |existence of each of these slogans singularly, however none of the sources found thus far establish the notability of these slogans as a group.  Each source listed in the article at this point appears to only talk about one or two of the slogans, usually mentioning them in a largely trivial way.  None of the sources are ''about'' the collection of slogans as a whole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:EXIST)

Comment: Apple's marketing is quite notable, being the subject of numerous reliable sources.  I found no difficulty in providing a citation for the first entry and improving the rest just seems to be a matter of ordinary editing per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: per .  Could potentially be resurrected as "History of Apple advertising" or something similar
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: Sources are trivially findable. '''Neutralhomer''', this is not it works. If you can't be bothered to {{tl|sofixit}}, then tag it {{tl|cn}}. "Afd is not for cleanup". You don't challlenge people to "provide me with those 87 sources or else I demand this article should be deleted", this is considered disruptive. Your reasons are , at least think different and get a mac are notable to the point or having their own article, several others could, it is not unverifiable and it is not wp:original research, I refer to the in a nutshell
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: per  - almost entirely unverifiable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)