Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M&M's World

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-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

M&M's World (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

Article contains no reliable sources and does not assert notability. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me} _{Follow me} 10:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep, famous Vegas landmark. (I have one of their t-shirts) Corvus cornix _talk 21:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Delete. No references, no claims of notability. If it is "famous", as suggested by Corvus cornix, then someone should have been able to generate a reference in the 2.5 years since the article's creation. Bongomatic (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (削除ここまで)Keep. Convinced. Wish the references were to online sources though. Bongomatic (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Are these reliable?: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]... There are more. Corvus cornix _talk 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
    • I couldn't read many of them, as a lot were pay sites, but the others didn't really address notability and either mention the place in passing, or read like they're based on a press release. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me} _{Follow me} 08:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
    • If they are reliable, add them to the article. If I'm not mistaken, AfD is supposed to pass judgment primarily on the article, not the theoretical best article that can be written on the topic. As mentioned before, it's not as though editors have been pressed for time to find and incorporate relevant citations. Bongomatic (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
      • No, that's not quite right—if an article can be improved through regular editing, then it should be improved, not deleted. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• ...which is what I have done. In my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles, "M&M's World" gets over 200 hits. Now, not all of them address the topic in a non-trivial way, but dozens do. I've expanded the article and added some of the references, including citations to the New York Daily News and The Columbus Dispatch among many others. It meets WP:N notability. This is a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep - reliable sources have been shown to exist and have been added to the article -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep for notability. btw for EU tourists the store located in NYC is considered as one of the place to go (at least it is my perception) Richieman (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (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.