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.
Delete Asserting notability is never sufficient; notability must be demonstrated by referring to reliable third-party sources. A sea-world press release, like press releases in general, is never a valid way of references notability because press releases are usually biased towards promoting a particular agenda. The other reference is a website that, while certainly interesting, a quality site, and valuable for the "External Links" section of a website, isn't really a reliable source--it doesn't even say who runs it, and it certainly doesn't have any evidence of a rigorous editorial process. Cazort (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was rewritten to say it is a specific claim by Sea World, it's still a claim of notability. In that case the press release is perfectly acceptable as a reference. - Mgm|(talk)22:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment press releases are self published sources and are not suitable as references. That being said, these press releases are republished (often as is) by 3rd party news organizations (such as newspapers, magazines, television stations, etc). These are considered reliable sources and serve to vet the information enough for use as a wikipedia citation. Bottom, if this information is credible and notable, it is likely to be found in another news source other than a company press release, but company press releases are not suitable references, especially to establish notability. --Rtphokie (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This orca (and most others now in the AfD process) has bios in several sites devoted to orca-lovers. Some are fan clubs, others are campaigning for release. I suppose they are sort-of independent sources. Some seem well-researched, presumably reliable. To me, they are acceptable as sources of information, but dodgy as proof of notability. Katina does not seem in any way exceptional, unlike others who have made the news for one reason or another. I am more comfortable redirecting to the section in Captive orcas that describes Katina as an example. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.