Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolphin safe label

:{{la|Dolphin safe label}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Dolphin safe label}})

• This article is, essentially, a stand-alone list of labels. As such, the notability requirement is to show that the list itself is notable, per WP:NOTESAL.
• I have attempted to find a reliable source establishing the notability of this particular list, and have failed to do so.
• Many claims in article are cited to claimants. That fails WP:RS.
• As claimants are product vendors, article gives the appearance of being WP:ARTSPAM.

24.177.123.74 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Completing nomination for IP. Rationale taken from article talk page. Jujutacular ^talk 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep seems to meet a minimum level of notability, referenced well enough to keep. Maybe a rename and expand as "Dolphin safe tuna" or something like that, but the subject matter seems reasonable for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 04:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and expand and improve references. Could possibly be renamed as "List of Dolphin safe labels".--Salix (talk): 10:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete this article, is notable (see talk page of article for reasoning) and is found to be within the scope of two wikipedia projects. It is by no means spam (it does not promote the products). If this would be spam then Captain Birdseye and similar articles would certainly also require deletion? Any problems with the references could be discussed on the talk page and then addressed simply by editing the article. It is not simply a list of some labels, the article includes background information as well. @Jayron32: Dolphin safe tuna already redirects there :) BabyNuke (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable to me and it is possible to expand and improve references {{find|dolphin safe label}}. @Salix: In my opinion the article can be more interesting than just a list of Dolphin safe labels.--Crazy runner (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is notable; the article can be cleaned up. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Valid encyclopedic topic, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2011 (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.