Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cajun Sushi Hamsters

:{{la|Cajun Sushi Hamsters}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cajun_Sushi_Hamsters Stats])

:({{Find sources|Cajun Sushi Hamsters}})

Appears to be a non-notable organization; barring forums and blogs (of the "I'm a participant" type) there are hardly any refs, try [http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en-US&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=cajun+sushi+hamsters&btnG=Google+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=#q=%22cajun+sushi+hamsters%22+-wikipedia+-blog+-blogspot+-forum+-facebook+-wn.com this search]. Has been around unreffed and orphaned since 2007. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. While I absolutely love the name, there aren't any sources out there to show that this group has enough notability to warrant having an article. There's a ton of unusable sources, but nothing that would be considered to be a reliable source per Wikipedia's criteria.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the one-sentence article barely makes it into "stub" category. I could dig up a half dozen references or so-- the workshop has been written about in various newspaper and magazine articles-- but I'm not sure how many people are going to look up the workshop in Wikipedia. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:OK, I added a handful of citations I could find lying around. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:: While I'm happy to accept your sources in good faith, the article remains skeletal even for a stub. Would you be able either to provide the text of some of the cited articles, or to work the material into the article in the usual way, e.g. with a "Reception" section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as new sources appear to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. It's too bad that Northern Ohio Live is defunct but [http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/northern_ohio_live_magazine_ha.html this news article] strongly indicates that it was a reliable source for our purposes. (Article needs expansion, but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD.) - Dravecky (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is not an article that says very much. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is a sentence, not an article. Given that the references offered start in 1993 and go only through 2009, I'm not even sure the verb "is" in the article is still relevant. Perhaps it should be "was". If this workshop still exists, citations should be more readily available if it's notable. If it no longer operates, then it doesn't appear notable based on what's been provided thus far. If "The Cajun Sushi Hampsters keep winning awards and launching careers." (as was noted in the 2006 link), then there should be references to those awards or careers launched. The Cleveland Plain Dealer article only says that some members of the workshop are going to do a reading at a bookstore (not notable), so all in all, I recommend a deletion. Vertium (talk to me) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (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.