Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VitaCraft Japan

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 merge to Vita Craft Corporation. John Reaves (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vita Craft Japan

Vita Craft Japan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir ^Talk 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete This article may not have any sources, but RFIQin has many souces that reference Vita Craft Japan. Also, how does this article read like an advertisement? I would like to know, so I can change it (if it does not get deleted) to not read like an advertisement. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - I changed my choice. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree that the advert point is not valid. However, he article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product. BlueValour 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Vita Craft Corporation, if that article is kept. They may technically be separate entities, but they are clearly closely related and can be better covered in a single article. Separate articles are overkill in the case of marginal notability. If the main Vita Craft Corporation article is deleted, then this one should be as well.--Kubigula (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - That is a good idea. -ChristopherMannMcKay 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Kubigula. →EdGl 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Vita Craft Corporation since there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 18:14, 13 March 2007 (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.