Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-dec
Per the deletion ''policy'', did the nominator look for sources before nominating this article? If so, what sources did you find? I found http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/02/09/daily54.html this, http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/04/07/story7.html this, http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/01/01/daily7.html this, http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/08/23/daily45.html this, http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/1997/12/15/story7.html this and http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v204/n3/full/bdj.2008.93.html this all online. And that's just a quick search, a search through ''The Oregonian'' archives would likely double or triple that number. Ditto if we could find some sort of dentists magazine. As to the above editor with their personal essay, seriously? Notability is notability, not notability to everyone. Really, even  itself in the lead speaks to this: "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and '''arbitrary''' standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." (emphasis added). There is nothing about trade magazines not being sources for notability, they are perfectly fine as long as they do qualify as RS and are independent. If you want to change this, fine, but take it to the CORP talk page and work it out there, as that guideline has consensus, and your essay does not. And AfD arguments and decisions should be based on existing policies/guidelines, not personal opinions
— User:Aboutmovies, 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Notability)