Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inori Aizawa


 * 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   keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Inori Aizawa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First, the article is a direct violation of WP:NOTADVERT because its subject is purely an advertisement device. It is like writing an article for the image of the women you find on the box of the product of your choice.

Apart from a YouTube ad and some news outlet briefly acknowledging its presence, there is no coverage, let alone the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And it matters because you are falsely accusing people of serious editorial misbehavior. Even if it's a misunderstanding, you should be mortified. --erachima talk 17:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOTADVERT does not apply in this case, since that policy refers to writing actual advertisements on Wikipedia (e.g. Drink product Y to lose weight in 30 days!), and not writing about advertisements that are notable. We have many articles about advertisements, including Grim Reaper (advertisement), Just Do It, Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?, Winston tastes good like a cigarette should, and I'm a PC. In other words, deletion should not be argued on the basis that the article covers a topic intend to advertise Internet Explorer; rather, the focus should only be on whether it meets WP:GNG. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. In theory, you are right: An article about an instance of advertisement isn't automatically a violation of WP:NOTADVERT. But in practice, this certain article's sole purpose is to show how cute she is. Now, that is self-promotion. Again, cuteness can be the sole subject of one article but only if there is evidence (in form of significant coverage in reliable sources) that the subject is considered by huge majority of the planet or has won't an official cuteness award. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing User:Sky6t of affiliation with Microsoft Singapore? If not, I'd highly suggest you redact your claim that this article is "self-promotion." --erachima talk 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not dignifying this comment with an answer. Each day, many articles are deleted because of failure to comply with Wikipedia policies and most – if not all all of them – are written by selfless well-meaning editors. The article does what it does. I have no comment as to whether what the article does is a result of mens rea by the writer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You do in fact have a comment on the matter: the one you made when you claimed the article was self-promotion, which is a very serious claim. So I ask again: Are you accusing the article's creator, User:Sky6t, of possessing a personal or professional conflict of interest with respect to this article? If you are, on the basis of what evidence are you doing so? If you are not, why do you refuse to take back this serious accusation against a fellow editor? --erachima talk 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An article advertising a subject is promotional; an article advertising a promotional device is therefore self-promotional. Furthermore, COI applies when an article promotes the author. (Self-promotional authors write promotional articles.) Featured Articles are actually self-promotional because they promote themselves and need no advertisement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what the term "self-promotion" means, either in the English language or in Wikipedia terminology. If that's how you personally use it, I would heavily recommend you drop the term from your vocabulary while on Wikipedia to avoid repeating this misunderstanding in the future. I also yet again insist that you please redact or rephrase the original statement to make it clear that you did not think you were accusing the article's editors of WP:COI issues. --erachima talk 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's hear how would you describe "self-promotional" in the context that I explained. Then I decide. But again, does it matter? The article unjustly uses Wikipedia to put Inori Aizawa into the center of attention and ends up promoting IE and Microsoft too. That doesn't necessitate that its writers are minions of Dr. Demonio. Concerned, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Self-promotion" refers to human beings advertizing themselves to advance their personal (usually career or financial) interests. It is not used in the context you describe. It does not have any other meanings. It cannot be applied to a mascot. It does not apply to featured articles. Your claim that this article is self-promotion is an unambiguous accusation of WP:COI on the part of its editors, and while the fact that you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of the word is a reasonable defense for making the mistake in the first place, it does not excuse leaving it up there.
 * Eluding question that can resolve this issue once and for all, aren't we? So get this: Any time you decided to give up the act of the pot calling the kettle black and instead, come up with the correct phrase, I will consider paraphrasing myself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't read your mind, and you're using words to mean things that nobody else uses them for in English, so I cannot possibly tell you what you think you are saying when you use "self-promotion." Just replace it with almost literally any other phrasing that reflects what you think and you'll be fine. --erachima talk 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nomination rationale is clearly mistaken, so this should probably be a speedy keep. That said, the amount of content in this article is slight enough that I see little reason this can't be covered as part of OS-tan, so feel free to merge it once the discussion's over. --erachima talk 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the content is to be merged, I'd say it would be more suitable at Moe anthropomorphism. -- benlisquare T•C•E 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OS-tan includes the other browser personifications. --erachima talk 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or merge somewhere as suggested by some users. Not notable enough to have a standalone article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Why should I have a User Name?, would you be willing to reconsider now as more content, as well as multiple reliable sources, have been added to the article? Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: it is a blatant WP:ADVERTISEMENT in its current state. Article clearly failed WP:GNG. I can't find reliable sources that establish its notabilty. Wikicology (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a google search for 藍澤祈 provides plenty of hits from computer software and technology news websites, plenty of them that are major sites from Hong Kong and Taiwan with significant readership. WP:NONENG sources can also be used to assess WP:GNG. -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Wikicology, would you be willing to reconsider now that the article has been substantially changed, and multiple reliable sources added? Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Keep or Merge to Moe anthropomorphism and/or OS-tan - The sentence "Aizawa was adopted by Microsoft Singapore" is notable as a major company adopting a moe mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am revising my opinion per the sourcing below but have not left out my merging opinion should this not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: In the article reference 1 is a blog, reference 2 is blog, reference 3 is a Youtube video, reference 4 is a blog. bpage (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Bfpage, would you be willing to change your stance now that the unreliable sources have been removed and a number of reliable ones added? Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Bfpage has changed his vote to "keep" below. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - I'm not sure if WP:BEFORE was followed properly here - there's a large number of sources available. I confess that some of these may not be considered reliable, but the majority certainly are:
 * http://www.cnet.com/news/meet-microsofts-new-anime-ie-it-girl-inori-aizawa/
 * http://www.cnet.com/news/befriending-a-cutesy-anime-kid-ie-11-cozies-up-to-windows-7/
 * http://www.geekwire.com/2013/official-mascot-internet-explorer-isan-anime-character/
 * http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5073934/microsofts-anime-inspired-internet-explorer-ad-is-its-best-yet
 * http://kotaku.com/the-internet-reacts-to-internet-explorers-new-anime-ma-1460176000
 * http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/11/07/internet-explorer-looks-to-win-back-fans-with-new-moeanime-mascot-inori-aizawa/
 * http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2013-11-07/microsoft-singapore-creates-anime-inspired-mascot-for-internet-explorer
 * http://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-has-a-crazy-new-anime-mascot-2013-11
 * http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/internet-explorer-isnt-the-only-one-with-an-anime-girl-mascot
 * http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/internet-explorer-11-inori-aizawa-anime-does-little-to-promote-browser/
 * http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/124923-internet-explorer-goes-anime-with-inori-aizawa-its-new-official-mascot
 * http://techreport.com/news/25618/microsoft-pimps-internet-explorer-with-anime-mascot
 * http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/7/5076356/microsoft-anime-character-photo-essay
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/microsoft_bizarre_inori_ie_campaign/
 * And this is only just the english-language sources, and not considering the non-english sources as User:Benlisquare has pointed out above. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Admitedly I am a new, new-article reviewer and tagged this article for deletion. If you found so many references, why didn't go back to the article and insert them?  Wouldn't that have made this whole discussion moot? bpage (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated way back at the beginning, this discussion should have been closed as a procedural keep and then dealt with via expansion or merging, but that didn't happen. --erachima talk 03:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now done just that. These sort of things take time, especially as I have limited free time today. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per Satellizer  and Knowledgekid87. I know Satellizer said "Strong Keep" but in fact his reasons rule out keeping because:
 * 1) WP:NOTADVERT supersedes WP:GNG; it is not allowed to advertise even notable topics in Wikipedia. Articles are required to cover their subjects from a non-neutral point of view.
 * 2) I clicked on those links. They are passing coverage (the opposite of significant coverage required by WP:GNG) of fiction-only details (the opposite of encyclopedic coverage required by WP:PLOT). Some of these use mentions of other Microsoft ads to add to their volume. For example, how can this link be considered an evidence of notability? Notability means the subject must have impact.
 * 3) Suppose the article is kept. What are we going to do with these links? Write one article that contains something like this: "'Inori Aizawa is Microsoft's Internet Explorer mascot. She hates bullies and likes ice cream.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" Or are we going to dump them into a Further Reading section, a la the advertisement tactic of "What our satisfied customers say" section? Or are we going to repeat: "'TheVerge said IA likes ice cream. The Register said IA likes ice cream. Business Insider said IA likes ice cream. ...'"
 * Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Except, of course, this article isn't an advert. It's written in a neutral fashion and the article isn't helping to promote Microsoft or its products in any way. How is NPOV being violated? The article merely describes Inori. And even if the article is promotional in tone, AfD isn't cleanup, so if the GNG is met the article should still be kept.
 * 2) Inori is the sole/main focus of all those articles. That's the very opposite of what "passing coverage" is, which is a passing mention of the subject.
 * 3) Nope, the sources contain much more information than that. And coverage by multiple RS shows that Inori meets the GNG regardless of "what are we going to do with these links".
 * As a BTW, I won't be able to reply until tomorrow, it's getting late here. And I'll be willing to clean up the article a bit in time too. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you believe the best reply is just to say that opposite of things that I see? i.e. I can see that article is an advert, but you say "Except, of course, this article isn't an advert." Should I believe my eyes or you? Next, I didn't say Inori isn't the subject of those articles. What I said is that news outlets will write an article if Microsoft so much as poops, but such material is not Wikipedia material per WP:PLOT. (I cannot stress it enough that in Wikipedia, bombardment misrepresents notability.) Finally, the last items isn't what I said: Sources do not contain enough material to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". In fact, they are pretty biased.
 * Another point that is significant is that all your defenses are based on saving the article from deletion, while I said "merge" not "delete". The article does not have sufficient contents anyway and per WP:SIZERULE, can be merged, even if the outcome of this AfD is to keep it. No hard feelings... Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry but the problem here is you haven't proven that the article is an advert. I've made my reasoning clear as to why I believe the article isn't; it's written neutrally and isn't promoting Inori/Microsoft in any way. Most of the comments here say "delete because WP:NOTADVERT" without giving any clear reason why.
 * 2) I don't really see how WP:PLOT applies, as none of the sources I provided consists of only a "summary-only description" of Inori. Nor do I see why WP:Bombardment applies, as a)Inori isn't a single event and b)as I said above, Inori is the main focus, not a trivial mention. Some of the sources do indeed contain similar content, but most of is different.
 * 3) That's a pretty big misinterpretation of NPOV there. What NPOV states is that all viewpoints by individual sources should be given a fair and proportional representation, not the sources themselves. So basically, sources which praise Inori should be added, but sources criticizing her should be added as well. That's what NPOV means, not "this source is biased so we shouldn't add it."
 * And I never claimed that you were trying to delete the article, I'm just saying that Inori is notable enough, and enough content and sources exist, for her to have her own independent page. Apologies for the late reply, I only just had time now to do so. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, sir. No need for repeated apologies; I'm retired and myself am in no hurry to come here. If you are indeed not pounding at the deletion prospect, let's dispense your three-itemed list and turn our attention to merge vs. keep only. The clearest motive for the merger is the small size, per WP:SIZERULE. What do you say? Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, after the article expansion today at 10,311 bytes I daresay the article is large enough as a standalone. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Actually, SIZERULE accounts for the "readable prose size", which is around 4889 bytes now. According to the same page, for an article to survive a merge just on the ground of size, it needs to have ten times the current size. (40 kb). But this way just an explanatory text. I won't take side in this post. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article is less than 1 kB it says "If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub." That's not the case here.  If its >50kb it says you need to split it into different articles, and if its <40kb you don't need to split it based on size.   D r e a m Focus  21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the case here because you are reading the wrong entry. The entry of interest is "< 40 kB: Length alone does not justify division". For the record: 4889 bytes roughly equals only four kilobytes, not forty. (I thought better let you know, because maybe you read the wrong entry because you miscalculated.) Additionally, "> 50 kB" reads "greater than fifty kilobytes". "< 40 kB" reads "less than forty kilobytes". Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FleetCommand, How can you claim to be retired here and on your user page when you contribution clearly show you are certainly not?   D r e a m Focus  12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Because, you see, I've heard Fleet Command's "retired, not dead!" speech before and I have seen our fellow admin who has been having zero edits for a long time refusing to consider himself retired. And then, there is a certain user that I don't name who says he is retired but actually received a temporary 48-hours block for edit warring. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way: There has been a great change in my wiki-life consisting of a severe reduction in my editing rights, privileges and habits. I thought "retired" is more polite, less controversial and more accurate than "great purge". As far as it concerns you, Dream Focus, I no longer nominate your beloved anime and manga articles for deletion, so you have nothing to complain. But I don't want to digress from the topic any further, at least not here. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fleet Commander FleetCommand, where are you seeing the advert? I don't know whether it's an interpretation thing, but I'm not seeing it myself. Is the Samsung Galaxy S5 article an advert, or is it a page that merely explains the topic? Is the AT&T article an advert for AT&T? What are the components of a page which make an article an advert, and where are they seen in Inori Aizawa? -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me for being frank, but you've written my username wrong. If you were me, would you take claim of "I'm not seeing it myself" from a person who wouldn't see your username correctly? I myself might have dismissed it as a trifle if you hadn't asked for the proof strictly in the form of evidence, as if we're dealing with a scientific matter. Proof, you know, can come in the form of testimony, authority and definition as well. So, let's dispense with wordplay altogether: Both you and I have already stated our opposing opinions and failed to persuade each other. All that is left is to gently agree to disagree, especially, because I think the outcome of this discussion would be to both our satisfaction. Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I really did get your name wrong. My bad. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources have been found showing it clearly meets the general notability guidelines. It is not an advertisement.   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Dream Focus. It's been long time... Still having a soft spot for manga/anime characters, don't you? We used to clash a lot over this fact in AfDs, remember? You always said "Keep" and I always said "Delete". No hard feelings though. Just nostalgia. Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG per reliable sources identified by User:Satellizer.-- cyclopia speak! 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a substantial number of reliable references and sources to the article, which is now in a very different state as compared to when it was nominated, as well as when some of the initial delete !votes were cast. It is my request that the closing admin please take this into consideration. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, it received significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Notable. Cavarrone 06:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While previously sitting on the fence without much of a really strong opinion either way, I'm now inching towards a keep following Satellizer's major rehaul today. I was more neutral and indifferent earlier on since the page was rather barebones and didn't demonstrate much notability, however now it seems more salvageable and compliant with the expectations that we have for these kinds of articles. My primary concern is notability, and as of now it's been properly addressed; I still disagree with the argument that this page is an advert, since there's a difference between a promotional page and an article discussing an advertisement campaign (a la Category:Advertising campaigns, Category:Advertising slogans). -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw that someone asked me to reconsider my so-called vote. I believe, if things have changed, we must expect the nominator to change their stance; no need to ask every user one by one. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across as nagging, it's just that often AfD viewers make "drive-by" !votes and then never visit the AfD again. I felt it was necessary to inform the !voters whom commented before the article overhaul that things have indeed changed, and the notification only works if the user's userpage is linked to, thus I did it separately. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your vote should be on what you believe, not just repeating what the nominator says. Satellizer has significantly increased the size of the article and added in a well referenced reception section.  Is there any doubt that this passes WP:GNG now?   D r e a m Focus  12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In AfD's in general, the nominator's stance is only crucial when they are the sole argument for deletion. In the case of this AfD in particular, the nominator's stance is irrelevant, being factually incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of several policy terms. --erachima talk 12:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The nom has equal voice. No one's !vote is ever "irrelevant". In this case it just isn't as relevant as the Keeps, by some opinions. --  Green  C  16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Equal voice does not mean equal weight, and the person to whom I was replying went further and thought that being the nominator somehow granted extra weight. As to the general issue, of course there are irrelevant votes. Determining which opinions are grounded and which are irrelevant is the entire reason we have humans close these discussions rather than a mechanized up/down vote. --erachima talk 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a democracy but it is consensus-based and sometimes consensus is to ignore the rules. Much of the complaint about Wikipedia and AfD in particular is its rules-lawyering atmosphere, where only the specialist warriors excel, so there has been a sort of unspoken shift to give weight to a common sense plain language argument even if not to the letter of the rules. All you can do is employ the rules and hope for the best, but I've seen enough rightfully irrelevant !votes carry the day. -- Green  C  04:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, "" Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep. As long as there are valid "Merge" recommendations, there is little I can do in the way of withdrawing. As for changing, nominator should never change the nomination. (Minor edits to the nomination is only possible by leaving the old prose with strike-through style applied to it.) But you needn't worry. Article has certainly improved so much so that the character is no longer self-promoting. There have been strides in the way of improving NPOV since I last posted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Lisa. As far as I know when there is "no consensus" an article is not deleted. So I don't understand why people who want to keep an(y) article, seeing that there is no consensus, simply do not forget the relevant discussion and use the time to make another article or other articles or edit existing ones in WP. Are we here to prove we have the best arguments or to develop this project? (If you reply please let it not have any element to bring me back here and lose more time. I want to work elsewhere.) Nice to meet you. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Unanimous consensus" is not the synonym of "no consensus"; it is the antonym. "Unanimous consensus" means "every and each !vote reads the same". "No consensus" means they highly vary and their description text don't tally either. Also the "no quorum" rule does not apply to AfD. Finally, the "developing project" argument is one that impresses no one because the nominator has already decided that deletion is actually an improvement. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Codename Lisa, please don't spread blatant incorrect information, there are no such rules as you wrote above. Withdrawing a nomination is allowed at any time, and in cases "the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing" it is strongly suggested. And you can partially or wholly strike your nominations using Template:Strikethrough at any time, as well as you can add a new comment next to the old deletion rationale (possibly preceded by a bold note titled "Additional comment", "Update", "On second thought", "Withdrawn"). Cavarrone 04:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You should read your own links more carefully:"...if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion." And before accusing anyone of spreading misinformation, please consider that he or she might simply not agree with your point of view. Discussion in AfDs often get heated; it is important to keep a cool head and assume good faith. And by the way, "information" is a non-countable group noun, and is never written in plural form. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , lol, please point us on where the sentence you cited says that "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep"! A nominator could withdrawn his/her nomination and the discussion could be remain open, but this is another issue. Yes, Codename Lisa is spreading misinformation, and you too. BTW I don't care one bite that she withdraws her nom or not, just care about you two do not spread blatant misinformation. Cavarrone  09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The pot calling the kettle black again... in presence of a direct quotation. So, thanks, I guess. You made my day. Fleet Command (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way "you cited" means "you showed us where it says". So "point us on where the sentence you cited says" means "cite your cited sentence" or "point to where you've already pointed us", which are admission that I've already done. And "misinformation" can never be "blatant", only "patent" or "flagrant". So much for being an autoreviewer... Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * lol, you made my day! The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. Thanks for your desperate attempts of backing the nominator's lack of competence, we needed a bit of humour. And thanks for your irrelevant English lessons, very apprecciated. Cavarrone 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are welcome. Always a pleasure to show that A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion and see you and the nominator desperately watching as I merge the article anyway, regardless of your worthless votes. So, live long and suck it. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then, a most complete citation: "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion." I assume you are unable to see the "little" difference, but let the others judge if it is the same than "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep". However it is always funny discussing with someone who pretends that the sentence "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time" actually means "The nominator may NOT withdraw the nomination at any time". My best, Cavarrone 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "[...] I merge the article anyway, regardless of your worthless votes." You fail to see how disruptive that would be? Consensus is pretty damn important, not to mention policy, and it's really quite insulting when you use phrases such as calling votes "worthless", you really believe Wikipedia to be a place where you can do whatever you please, and the views of everyone else is "worthless" when compared to your own? Your interpretation of withdrawing AfDs is just as flawed as your interpretation of NPOV, I quote directly from WP:WITHDRAWN "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed." Please take note of the word anytime, and the second sentence, aka Nominator withdrawing the nomination DOES NOT EQUAL the AfD getting closed. And gee thanks for telling another editor to "suck it", how very civil and mature of you, I must say.  Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am a bit ashamed that I discomforted you, . After all, you're the guy who did all the hard work. So, even if "you" in my sentence applied to all people here (which isn't), you were credited by your action, not vote. And if there is any consolation, only "!vote" has value; "votes" are worthless anyway. Now, as long as "withdrawing" equals "short-circuiting", it does not matter which is used. However, as for saying "suck it", yes, it was inexcusable. Sorry. (Although I checked the dictionary and it means "get serious". Why do people think it is an insult?) Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. As for the withdrawing thing, you can't "short-circuit" an AfD by withdrawing it, as the discussion would remain open anyway. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has been expanded during the AfD. Some editors have claimed PR/Advertising, but neutral editors have worked on the article and genuinely believe it worth keeping. The sources are mostly independent and demonstrate some notability. --  Green  C  16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I change my initial position now that more references are part of the article and appears to be notable. Thanks for all the input.  This has been a learning experience for me.bpage (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I've struck through your delete !vote above, as you've changed your stance and (I assume) forgot to do it yourself. Thanks. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.