Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasterborous.com
I'm a bit baffled that an editor with over 6,000 edits and 400+ page creations needs reminding of the |notability guidelines.  The GNG, of course, requires "significant coverage" from multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources.  The only sources in the article are the website itself; of the one Kelvin 101 put up here, IMDB as a user-submitted site isn't a reliable source, the BBC America and Wales Online sources runs afoul of the guideline stating that a source consisting only of quotes ''from'' someone associated with a subject can't support the notability ''of'' the subject (and in any event it doesn't discuss the subject at all), the Salt Lake Comic Con source certainly isn't reliable even if it ''didn't'' redirect to the subject's website (which it does), and a website counter doesn't qualify as a reliable source either.  (It's not impressive that the website gets only ten times as many monthly page views as my obscure personal blog.)Honestly, Kelvin, if you haven't familiarized yourself with the requirements of the GNG, it's high time. In the meantime, if you can find reliable sources discussing ''the subject'' in significant detail, let us know.  These casual mentions don't qualify. ''' ''Nha Trang
— [[User talk:NukeThePukes|Allons!]], 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)