Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination) - Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]

* '''Keep''' per Tim Song [[user:UltraMagnus|<SPAN STYLE="background-color: black; color: Red">'''Ultra'''<SPAN STYLE="color: #0079e0">'''Magnus'''</SPAN></SPAN>]][[User_talk:UltraMagnus|^{<SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN>}]] 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' per Tim Song [[user:UltraMagnus|<SPAN STYLE="background-color: black; color: Red">'''Ultra'''<SPAN STYLE="color: #0079e0">'''Magnus'''</SPAN></SPAN>]][[User_talk:UltraMagnus|^{<SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN>}]] 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nominator. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nominator. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan|@]] 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*When the notability of an article is in question, we have [[WP:GNG|a test]] that we apply: is there non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source? This test is simple, objective and clear, and as Wikipedian guidelines go, it is also old and strong. Tim Song has provided two reliable sources, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial, so the test is passed.<p>The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia. It is what enables content contributors to decide ''for themselves'' whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first.<p>Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it. I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:Maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<span style="color:Maroon; font-size:x-small;">^Talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<span style="color:Maroon; font-size:x-small;">_Cont</span>]] 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*When the notability of an article is in question, we have [[WP:GNG|a test]] that we apply: is there non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source? This test is simple, objective and clear, and as Wikipedian guidelines go, it is also old and strong. Tim Song has provided two reliable sources, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial, so the test is passed.<p>The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia. It is what enables content contributors to decide ''for themselves'' whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first.</p><p>Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it. I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.—[[User:S Marshall|<span style="font-family:Verdana; color:Maroon;">'''S Marshall'''</span>]] [[User talk:S Marshall|<span style="color:Maroon; font-size:x-small;">^Talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|<span style="color:Maroon; font-size:x-small;">_Cont</span>]] 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' per Tim Song, [http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/8/0,3672,7962984,00.html] and [http://www.elheraldo.com.co/ELHERALDO/BancoConocimiento/P/pelestrenos360/pelestrenos360.asp?CodSeccion=12]. Whenever recommendations are being made it lifts the coverage beyond trivial, in my opinion, even if there isn't much written about the actual subject. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' per Tim Song, [http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/8/0,3672,7962984,00.html] and [http://www.elheraldo.com.co/ELHERALDO/BancoConocimiento/P/pelestrenos360/pelestrenos360.asp?CodSeccion=12]. Whenever recommendations are being made it lifts the coverage beyond trivial, in my opinion, even if there isn't much written about the actual subject. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', particularly after new sources have been linked above. Concerning nominating rationale; Saying it was deleted twice before is quite a red herring in the special case of this article. Where the first was a different article deleted after an AfD of questionable consensus and a closer leaving no rationale, and the second deletion being done in odd circumstances and then overturned? I'd say that it's basically the first AfD round for this article trying to hold itself on Wikipedia. The DRV particularly mentioned the possibility of a later AfD, and there are quite appropriate concerns raised. The only other thing I can offer as more statement of notability would be the coverage in multiple languages... though I know breadth of article isn't automatically part of notability criteria, I think it's at least encouraging toward it. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*'''Keep''', particularly after new sources have been linked above. Concerning nominating rationale; Saying it was deleted twice before is quite a red herring in the special case of this article. Where the first was a different article deleted after an AfD of questionable consensus and a closer leaving no rationale, and the second deletion being done in odd circumstances and then overturned? I'd say that it's basically the first AfD round for this article trying to hold itself on Wikipedia. The DRV particularly mentioned the possibility of a later AfD, and there are quite appropriate concerns raised. The only other thing I can offer as more statement of notability would be the coverage in multiple languages... though I know breadth of article isn't automatically part of notability criteria, I think it's at least encouraging toward it. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)