Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice


 * 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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah's Choice
No Rotten Tomatoes reviews, and no assertion of mainstream notability or coverage aside from passing mentions in a few (mainly Christian) sources. Also a target for spam (I've helped clean it up previously). SuaveArt (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – per WP:NF: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, PRO Medienmagazin (foreign language) and The Pilot News (of Marshall County, Indiana), and several reliable Christian publications such as The Christian Post and Charisma. An article does not need a Rotten Tomatoes review page to be notable (unless you can find a policy saying so?).  American Eagle  ( talk ) 05:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. Besides sources already listed in the article, it is covered in mainstream news sources, such as this one from the Times-Herald, and this one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. This google news search: shows many more reliable sources behind paywalls, but there's more than enough here to establish notability. -- Jayron  32  05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as the mentions outside sources like Charisma (which in itself is not very notable or reliable) are extremely brief. Per WP:NF I don't see any real coverage. I've edited this article before and didn't see any issues with it at the time, but after going over the sources in question, my opinion has changed. I'll let this AFD play out.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, the notability is established by mentions in third party sources. Additionally, being a target for spam is not a reason for deletion. Also, what difference does it make if the sources are Christian? Something can be notable even if it is not mainstream. --Taelus (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Filmcom (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of mentions in reliable sources. Suggest speedy close of discussion under Snowball clause. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Steve03Mills (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (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.