Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordon Saffron Taste this

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Saffron Taste This![edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability of a film. tedder (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow continued improvements to this new article about an award (minor) winning film by a new author that did indeed have a reliable source review of the film when prodded for a deletion with an explanation that it offered none.[1] With respects to the nominator, it might have been better to have simply tagged this new article for cleanup and additional sources, rather than for immediate deletion. That said, I am working toward its further improvement, and will notify the newcomer author of this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note What was nominated as this has been expanded, further sourced, and made more encyclopedic... THIS is looking far better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removal of a prod is not a reason to nominate for deletion - quite the contrary. Please see WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was notable when it was nominated, but in its improved state, notability is obvious.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of article appears to have meet WP:GNG using references from reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (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.