Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This project article is part of WikiProject Japan. Click here for more information.


Shortcut:


Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg
WikiProject Japan (Talk)

Founded
March 18, 2006
(8 years, 5 months and 10 days ago)

Shortcuts
WP:JAWP:JPWP:JPNWP:WPJWP:JapanWP:JAPAN

Project parentage
Countries, Geography

This page functions as a notice board for things related to Japan. You are welcome to post a notice here for any question, concern, dispute, poll or proposal you have regarding any Japan or Japan-related topic. You can also find and list new Japan-related articles. Our aim is to make as many articles as possible related to Japan featured articles

WikiProject Japan[edit]

WikiProject Japan is designed to help organize all those working on Japan-related projects on Wikipedia. It acts as a clearing house to point editors to projects which interest them, and to make those projects easier to find.

  • If you want to work on a Japan-related project, please visit WikiProject Japan and see the various projects and task forces listed there. We encourage you to join the project and/or one of the related projects or task forces listed there.
  • If there is a topic which doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia, please add it to the list of requests or create it yourself.
  • If you have a question about a Japan-related topic, please post it on the WikiProject Japan Talk page for a quick reply. Be sure to check the list of task forces as well (to the right).


Start a discussion[edit]

New articles[edit]

The following are some of the newest Japan-related articles on Wikipedia for the month of August. Please feel free to edit this list.

You can watch this list to see the latest changes.

If you have a new train-related article, please also place it on Newest articles about trains in Japan.

Automatically generated list[edit]

For an automatically generated list of new articles likely related to Japan, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#New articles.

Manually maintained list[edit]

C, C, & C. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
C-class. See Talk:Inazuma Eleven (manga) for comments. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Start-class. See Talk:Rōmon for commentary. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Start Class. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
B-Class. See Talk:Glossary of Japanese swords for Commentary. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Assessed Start class. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)



You can see WikiProject Japan or Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) for additional current issues and discussion.
Archives


Japan[edit]

MS-09[edit]

MS-09 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MS-09" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Entirely in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Appears to have zero real world notability. Daniel(talk) 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RX-75 Guntank[edit]

RX-75 Guntank (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "RX-75 Guntank" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Appears to be almost exclusively in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Little reference towards real world notability. Daniel(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

JUNTAMURA[edit]

JUNTAMURA (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "JUNTAMURA" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Unsourced and, as far as can be told from the barely intelligible content, no real indication of notability Jac16888 Talk 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the absence of any third-party sources or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how basic notability has been established here, and the article appears to be a promotional effort. --DAJF (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is just MT from Japanese, so has zero value. (Anyone who wants MT of the Japanese article can get it; we should not be cluttering up WP with textual junk.) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) And anyway WP style is to use English capitalisation etc, not Japanese. Since the person's real name is {Tamura, Jun} (permute to taste), it should probably be JunTamura, or Jun Tamura, to normalise the erratic Japanese "style". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Toshihiro Nakamura[edit]

Toshihiro Nakamura (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Toshihiro Nakamura" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Spin-off from discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Wojkowska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopernik (organization) which I nominated last week. Apparently the probably notable NGO has two non-notable founders: here's the second of them. Just like Ewa, it seems to fail WP:BIO notaiblity reqs: not enough in-depth coverage and/or mainstream coverage. Being a regional TED speaker is not enough. Ping User:Novickas, User:Michitaro, User:Skyring, User:AlanS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayuri Fujita[edit]

Sayuri Fujita (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sayuri Fujita" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)
(Find sources: "藤田小百合" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. TV personality. Clearly not notable. scope_creep talk 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the Korean sources in the article, plus the Chinese ones shown above, there are also Japanese sources as well: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],[12], etc. Here are even some English sources: [13], [14], etc. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Takumi Ogawa[edit]

Takumi Ogawa (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Takumi Ogawa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I believe this subject fails WP:NOTABLE. Tina Gasturich (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. If he played association football in a fully professional league, he is notable. see WP:NFOOTY. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Machida Zelvia was only in a fully professional league (J. League Division 2) for one of the years that Ogawa was on the team: 2012. And for most of 2012 Ogawa was on loan to a team in a non-professional league (in the Japan Football League). But he did play one match for Machida while it was in J2: as a substitute on March 11, 2012, entering in the 37th minute [15]. That is sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTY. Michitaro (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep On the basis of what Michitaro has posted. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Akatsukizukuyo (Day Breakers)[edit]

Akatsukizukuyo (Day Breakers) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Akatsukizukuyo (Day Breakers)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails to qualify WP:NSONG. No sign of significance as fas as I could see. Nominated for speedy deletion but was removed. Mr RD 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Kopernik (organization)[edit]

Kopernik (organization) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kopernik (organization)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

I stand by my prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement." Deprodded by creator "Object to deletion because Kopernik (organization) is a registered NPO in the US and had successful ongoing activities for the past 4 years". I am afraid this is simply not sufficient defense in light of the cited policies. PS. It's a shame that the creator was not trying to save valuable encyclopedic images showing that NGO's work in developing countries (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterfilters.jpg and others). PPS. See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Wojkowska. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. I was concerned about this article and the two others on the organization's founders from the start. They were produced by an SPA (who has done no other editing) who is likely related to the organization. The same user uploaded a number of copyright violations to Commons that were used in these articles and that had to be deleted. The text of the article still reads too much like an advertisement. But despite such concerns, I myself never nominated this for AfD because brief searches of the net seems to show enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I think we have to keep it, but it needs some strict, neutral editing. Michitaro (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's kept, I'll do a rewrite. Novickas (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 06:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite. Novickas brought up several valid sources. In addition, the article contains an article from the Huffington Post, which covers the organization in some detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tonari no Kashiwagi-san[edit]

Tonari no Kashiwagi-san (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tonari no Kashiwagi-san" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. Also, note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources (i.e. illegal scanlations) overwhelm any reliable sources which at the same time lack any kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG. At best, it will become automatically notable in the future should it get an anime adaptation. For now it was simply created WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted or usefyed until a more suitable time.

Note: I suggest that the closing admin thoroughly read the arguments below before making a decision, the WikiProject sees this happen less and less for debates of this kind. KirtZJ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not that the motion comic would keep it on that basis alone, just saying that it gives off the hope that there would be more sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON not a policy based argument I know but this gives more time for sources to be found for a possible re-creation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep - Firstly, I wish to state that "[...] note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources overwhelm any reliable sources" is a false statement as just because an article has no coverage in English does not mean it has no coverage in Japanese - WP:NONENG applies. That being said though, there doesn't seem to be much coverage in Japan either - there is this, this and this, though whether they count anything towards notability I cannot say, as I'm not able to read in any language other than English. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Satellizer: I also found [22] When looking for reliable sources I find that Wikipedia Japan helps and by looking at their entry on the manga it looks like it is only primary sources for external links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty, the Japanese Wikipedia (along with 99.9% of other Wikipedias) has much looser requirements and a higher degree of tolerance with lack of sourcing when compared to the English version. It's not uncommon for Japan-exclusive products, such as video games (a topic I'm used to editing) have no corresponding article whatsoever or it being in much poorer condition that its English-language counterpart. Though in this case I completely agree with you as there is a noticeable lack of RS, with the (possible) exception of the three I pointed out above. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You shouldnt really take what I said out of context. Searching Google throws up a host of illegal scanlations—which is what I meant and doesnt give any weight to keeping this page. At any rate, I dont see anything notable about this page for an English article even if it exists on other language Wikipedia(s) which are more lax when it comes to policy. —KirtZMessage 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The relevant point is that the preponderance of scanlation sites also doesn't give any weight against keeping the page, since the same is true for series that do unquestionably pass GNG. It may simply show that you're bad at Googling. --erachima talk 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Semantics. Apologies if I wasnt clear. All I did was do a quick google search and found no uniqueness for notability. You feel free to do a more in-depth search. Keeping the article based solely on the reason that it has published volumes (as shown by some of Satellizer's Japanese sources) is hardly compelling though. —KirtZMessage 21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a matter of clarification though I'll say that what I thought you meant was "since this manga is not available in English, there won't be coverage by reliable sources and thus would be overwhelmed by fan sources". Thats more of a differing interpretation than taking things out of context. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There are two 100% reliable Jspanese sources in the References section. The series is notable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thats not a good argument. Just because (questionably) reliable sources exist on the page does not mean that their content makes the series notable. —KirtZMessage 02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point even if the sources are reliable it does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable since the coverage could be trivial (ie a regurgitation of a press release etc). Can anyone who knows Japanese look at these sources and weigh in on whether or not the coverage is significant enough?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BKCRIT. No independent mentions, The MyNavi.jp is just a news report that it was adapted into a motion comic, which could have been a press release. Article really needed to be developed at WP:AFC first. The mantan web one is a dead link. One of the books did reach number 33 on Oricon, but that counts as a passing mention for notability purposes. Rest are publisher-based primary sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Prima facie, this is at least a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published and therefore ought not to be deleted whilst the article on that magazine exists (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The magazine article itself has WP:N issues and will probably be nominated for deletion as Knowledgekid87 suggested above. —KirtZMessage 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that "probably" is good enough. I think that if you want this deleted now, you should include the magazine in this nomination. James500 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thats your opinion. One thing at a time. The WikiProject already has enough problems with these ridiculous creations as it is. —KirtZMessage 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This "ridiculous creation" could have been dealt with in a matter of seconds by means of a blank and redirect, if that is necessary. I can't see how salami tactics can be compatible with WP:R. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's AfD because its not a WP:R matter. The point is this page shouldn't exist. —KirtZMessage 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to the closer, User:James500 retracted some comments but completely removed them instead of using strikethrough, which is why User:KirtZJ now seems to be replying to himself above. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't this have been dealt with by removing the entire thread? James500 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Normally, comments aren't removed from AFD discussions, but are crossed out when retracted. I guess in theory both you and KirtZJ could have decided to entirely remove those comments, but you aren't supposed to remove someone else's comments, so you or I couldn't remove his comments above. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)





Anime and manga[edit]

MS-09[edit]

MS-09 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MS-09" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Entirely in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Appears to have zero real world notability. Daniel(talk) 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RX-75 Guntank[edit]

RX-75 Guntank (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "RX-75 Guntank" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Appears to be almost exclusively in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Little reference towards real world notability. Daniel(talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflex Point[edit]

Reflex Point (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Reflex Point" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Following on successful AfD of List of Robotech vehicles I present Reflex Point, an article about a fictional location written entirely from an in universe perspective. It contains no references outside of the fictional media in which it exists. Daniel(talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - This should be moved to wikia it is total fancruft without any indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Naru2u[edit]

Naru2u (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Naru2u" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Article deleted by PROD, then userfyed at the request of the author. It has now been restored without changes to notability. No coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I tried finding coverage, but there just isn't any out there for this convention. It's listed in the usual anime/manga convention databases (AnimeCons, etc) and there's a smattering of blog and forum posts out there, but there is no actual coverage in places that would be independent of the N2U and in a place we'd consider to be reliable. It's just your typical run of the mill small anime convention, the type you'd see pepper the landscape of any country. It just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A bit of a disclaimer: Esw01407 asked for my advice about how to proceed with this article, so I was aware that this would be coming to AfD. He did not ask me to vote one way or another. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nearly all of the Canadian Anime Conventions listed on Wikipedia are poorly covered by external sources, even Anime North which is Canada's largest convention. So if we deleted this one, it would set a precedent to delete them all, especially since most are comparably small in size (e.g. Nadeshicon, Animaritime, G-Anime, etc.). That said however, I believe the convention is now defunct, so there's that. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Io Katai: I disagree size does not always tie into notability, you are talking about deleting them all while conventions such as Otakuthon has the notability. I would look for sources before placing them up for deletion one by one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Size is only relevant in that it suggests that there may be more sources available on the topic. So a small convention will typically have a lesser number of external sources talking about it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that nearly all of the Canadian conventions are barely sourced and would therefore fail the reliability and notability guidelines. Using one counter example doesn't change that fact. I mean, looking up sources for Animaritime, Nadeshicon or G-Anime leads to nothing more notable than sources for Naru2U. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the deletion of this article wouldn't really set a precedent as we've had more than a few articles on small conventions of varying types get deleted at AfD. In general, most conventions tend to get fairly poor coverage regardless of where in the world they are, whether it's in America or in Canada. I've seen plenty of American anime conventions get nominated for deletion and end up getting deleted because nobody covered them. I could probably search and find about a good few dozen applicable AfDs that closed as a delete because it was a small con that got little to no coverage. In short, notability is decided by coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. While it'd be nice to keep articles on every con, we can't keep an article for any other reason than notability proven through coverage in reliable sources. We can't make allowances based on the size of the con- we still need the coverage. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are some examples from various different years. Most of these deleted articles are American conventions. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Basically, just saying that the only way to argue for this getting kept is to provide coverage in reliable sources. I don't mean that to come across harshly, just that it's the only way to show notability for anything by the current notability standards. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Then if the precedent already exists, we should follow up and nominate the others mentioned for deletion as per the same reasons. All I'm saying is to be consistent when applying rules/guidelines. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - there just isn't enough reliable sources about Naru2u to meet notability guidelines, unfortunately. Even "usual" sources, such as Anime News Network, have very little to no coverage. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Robotech vehicles[edit]

List of Robotech vehicles (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of Robotech vehicles" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

This article is almost exclusively in universe descriptions of fictional vehicles and as such is unencyclopedic. All of the references are from Robotech franchise products rather than outside sources which does little to establish the notability of this fictional topic. Things like this are much better handled on separate wikis like this one [23]. --Daniel(talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Daniel(talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - I disagree. Robotech one of the first adaptations of Japanese animation to a Western Audience. Wikipedia has a wide variety of articles covering the Robotech Universe (see Template:Robotech). That more than proves this topic is certainly notable. In addition, given the list of references at the bottom of the, I fail to see why this is not properly sourced. A lot of editors (myself included) have put a lot of work into this article, which has taken almost six years to develop. It's true that some portions of this page could be shortened (or even removed), but deleting the entire article outright seems like overkill.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC))
How do a wide variety of articles on other topics (some that should also be deleted) prove this article to be notable? Robotech's notability as a widely known animation is not inherited by its fictional content. The question is, have multiple reliable sources, outside of Robotech media, discussed these fictional vehicles in any depth? A long list of "references" does not always add up to notability. The references used in this article are exclusively of two types, references to Robotech media itself (which do not establish notability) and fan speculation (which has no place whatsoever in a real encyclopedia). The thing is, the work yourself and others have put into this article does not need to be lost. This content could easily be moved to the Robotech wiki that I linked to without losing anything. --Daniel(talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a question of Robotech's importance or notability. It's a question of the individual article in question. Character lists are generally accepted as spin out articles for various reasons, plus a well done character list will include critical reception of one or more characters. Vehicles and equipment lists tend to be considered unsuitable for Wikipedia articles due to their minimal scope - they generally aren't discussed by reliable third party sources and aren't likely to be of interest to the general user. The fan speculation has no place here and the other references tell us things but not what those things are important. The nomination is correct in saying there are more suited places to put this kind of information than Wikipedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, and looks like a lot of cleanup is necessary here. A quick look at the character articles show the same kind of in-universe/walled garden issue, these need trimmed well down. This type of in-universe content without independent referencing and analysis works for a Wikia, but isn't appropriate here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.
  • Delete as not notable; WP:GNG not met. Note that as none of the editors whom !voted "keep" has given any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping the article, their arguments should not be given significant weight; and as User:Seraphimblade has said, many other Robotech articles also suffer from the same problem of unproven notability and lack of adequate sourcing. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LISTN, I know there are fans of this show but we are not wikia. My suggestion is for anyone who wants to keep these things to transfer the information over to the wikia fansite as sadly the sources are just not here to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary detail. Second Kid's suggestion of transwiki. --erachima talk 08:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete- it only looks like there are lots of sources. There actually aren't. You can see that most of the inline citations actually go to the series' official website or to the fictional series itself, thus are no good for establishing notability. Others are just blatant original research. "These are only the estimates of the fans." Give me a break. Reyk YO! 03:58, 23 August 2014 (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.

Daytime Shooting Star[edit]

Daytime Shooting Star (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Daytime Shooting Star" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Search for reliable third-party sources only turns illegal scanlation websites. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. Even Anime News Network's encyclopedia doesn't contain an entry on this. Article is almost entirely WP:PLOT. —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. To my surprise, ja:ひるなかの流星 actually has a couple sources. I don't know if they're in any way useful, but due diligence. --erachima talk 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Two references from the same site. However from that site it appears the series is involved with a clothing label (Comic Natalie link: [24]).SephyTheThird (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm at work and can't view Anime News Network right now, but I remember them having an article saying the series got a clothing line. I assume that is referring to the same thing as that Japanese site. Calathan (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2014-05-25/daytime-shooting-star-shojo-manga-gets-clothing-line/.74746 SephyTheThird (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - About the manga not being in Anime News Network's encyclopedia, that doesn't really reflect whether the series is notable, but instead just reflects that it hasn't been released in the United States. There are far more manga submitted in Anime News Network's submission queue than the staff has time to add, so series that have been released in the US or that are by mangaka who are well known in the US get priority to be added. A manga can be pretty well known in Japan and still not be in the Encyclopedia if it hasn't been released in the US. Calathan (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with no good references to be found there is not anything that can be worked on for improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000

15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Tonari no Kashiwagi-san[edit]

Tonari no Kashiwagi-san (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Tonari no Kashiwagi-san" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Fails WP:GNG. Also, note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources (i.e. illegal scanlations) overwhelm any reliable sources which at the same time lack any kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG. At best, it will become automatically notable in the future should it get an anime adaptation. For now it was simply created WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted or usefyed until a more suitable time.

Note: I suggest that the closing admin thoroughly read the arguments below before making a decision, the WikiProject sees this happen less and less for debates of this kind. KirtZJ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not that the motion comic would keep it on that basis alone, just saying that it gives off the hope that there would be more sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON not a policy based argument I know but this gives more time for sources to be found for a possible re-creation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep - Firstly, I wish to state that "[...] note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources overwhelm any reliable sources" is a false statement as just because an article has no coverage in English does not mean it has no coverage in Japanese - WP:NONENG applies. That being said though, there doesn't seem to be much coverage in Japan either - there is this, this and this, though whether they count anything towards notability I cannot say, as I'm not able to read in any language other than English. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Satellizer: I also found [25] When looking for reliable sources I find that Wikipedia Japan helps and by looking at their entry on the manga it looks like it is only primary sources for external links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty, the Japanese Wikipedia (along with 99.9% of other Wikipedias) has much looser requirements and a higher degree of tolerance with lack of sourcing when compared to the English version. It's not uncommon for Japan-exclusive products, such as video games (a topic I'm used to editing) have no corresponding article whatsoever or it being in much poorer condition that its English-language counterpart. Though in this case I completely agree with you as there is a noticeable lack of RS, with the (possible) exception of the three I pointed out above. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You shouldnt really take what I said out of context. Searching Google throws up a host of illegal scanlations—which is what I meant and doesnt give any weight to keeping this page. At any rate, I dont see anything notable about this page for an English article even if it exists on other language Wikipedia(s) which are more lax when it comes to policy. —KirtZMessage 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The relevant point is that the preponderance of scanlation sites also doesn't give any weight against keeping the page, since the same is true for series that do unquestionably pass GNG. It may simply show that you're bad at Googling. --erachima talk 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Semantics. Apologies if I wasnt clear. All I did was do a quick google search and found no uniqueness for notability. You feel free to do a more in-depth search. Keeping the article based solely on the reason that it has published volumes (as shown by some of Satellizer's Japanese sources) is hardly compelling though. —KirtZMessage 21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a matter of clarification though I'll say that what I thought you meant was "since this manga is not available in English, there won't be coverage by reliable sources and thus would be overwhelmed by fan sources". Thats more of a differing interpretation than taking things out of context. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There are two 100% reliable Jspanese sources in the References section. The series is notable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thats not a good argument. Just because (questionably) reliable sources exist on the page does not mean that their content makes the series notable. —KirtZMessage 02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point even if the sources are reliable it does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable since the coverage could be trivial (ie a regurgitation of a press release etc). Can anyone who knows Japanese look at these sources and weigh in on whether or not the coverage is significant enough?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BKCRIT. No independent mentions, The MyNavi.jp is just a news report that it was adapted into a motion comic, which could have been a press release. Article really needed to be developed at WP:AFC first. The mantan web one is a dead link. One of the books did reach number 33 on Oricon, but that counts as a passing mention for notability purposes. Rest are publisher-based primary sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Prima facie, this is at least a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published and therefore ought not to be deleted whilst the article on that magazine exists (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The magazine article itself has WP:N issues and will probably be nominated for deletion as Knowledgekid87 suggested above. —KirtZMessage 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that "probably" is good enough. I think that if you want this deleted now, you should include the magazine in this nomination. James500 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thats your opinion. One thing at a time. The WikiProject already has enough problems with these ridiculous creations as it is. —KirtZMessage 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
This "ridiculous creation" could have been dealt with in a matter of seconds by means of a blank and redirect, if that is necessary. I can't see how salami tactics can be compatible with WP:R. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's AfD because its not a WP:R matter. The point is this page shouldn't exist. —KirtZMessage 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to the closer, User:James500 retracted some comments but completely removed them instead of using strikethrough, which is why User:KirtZJ now seems to be replying to himself above. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't this have been dealt with by removing the entire thread? James500 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Normally, comments aren't removed from AFD discussions, but are crossed out when retracted. I guess in theory both you and KirtZJ could have decided to entirely remove those comments, but you aren't supposed to remove someone else's comments, so you or I couldn't remove his comments above. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
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.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Inori Aizawa[edit]

Inori Aizawa (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Inori Aizawa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

First, the article is a direct violation of WP:NOTADVERT because its subject is purely an advertisement device. It is like writing an article for the image of the women you find on the box of the product of your choice.

Apart from a YouTube ad and some news outlet briefly acknowledging its presence, there is no coverage, let alone the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. In theory, you are right: An article about an instance of advertisement isn't automatically a violation of WP:NOTADVERT. But in practice, this certain article's sole purpose is to show how cute she is. Now, that is self-promotion. Again, cuteness can be the sole subject of one article but only if there is evidence (in form of significant coverage in reliable sources) that the subject is considered by huge majority of the planet or has won't an official cuteness award.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you accusing User:Sky6t of affiliation with Microsoft Singapore? If not, I'd highly suggest you redact your claim that this article is "self-promotion." --erachima talk 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not dignifying this comment with an answer. Each day, many articles are deleted because of failure to comply with Wikipedia policies and most – if not all all of them – are written by selfless well-meaning editors. The article does what it does. I have no comment as to whether what the article does is a result of mens rea by the writer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You do in fact have a comment on the matter: the one you made when you claimed the article was self-promotion, which is a very serious claim. So I ask again: Are you accusing the article's creator, User:Sky6t, of possessing a personal or professional conflict of interest with respect to this article? If you are, on the basis of what evidence are you doing so? If you are not, why do you refuse to take back this serious accusation against a fellow editor? --erachima talk 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • An article advertising a subject is promotional; an article advertising a promotional device is therefore self-promotional. Furthermore, COI applies when an article promotes the author. (Self-promotional authors write promotional articles.) Featured Articles are actually self-promotional because they promote themselves and need no advertisement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not what the term "self-promotion" means, either in the English language or in Wikipedia terminology. If that's how you personally use it, I would heavily recommend you drop the term from your vocabulary while on Wikipedia to avoid repeating this misunderstanding in the future. I also yet again insist that you please redact or rephrase the original statement to make it clear that you did not think you were accusing the article's editors of WP:COI issues. --erachima talk 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's hear how would you describe "self-promotional" in the context that I explained. Then I decide.
    But again, does it matter? The article unjustly uses Wikipedia to put Inori Aizawa into the center of attention and ends up promoting IE and Microsoft too. That doesn't necessitate that its writers are minions of Dr. Demonio.
    Concerned,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Self-promotion" refers to human beings advertizing themselves to advance their personal (usually career or financial) interests. It is not used in the context you describe. It does not have any other meanings. It cannot be applied to a mascot. It does not apply to featured articles. Your claim that this article is self-promotion is an unambiguous accusation of WP:COI on the part of its editors, and while the fact that you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of the word is a reasonable defense for making the mistake in the first place, it does not excuse leaving it up there.
    And it matters because you are falsely accusing people of serious editorial misbehavior. Even if it's a misunderstanding, you should be mortified. --erachima talk 17:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Eluding question that can resolve this issue once and for all, aren't we? So get this: Any time you decided to give up the act of the pot calling the kettle black and instead, come up with the correct phrase, I will consider paraphrasing myself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't read your mind, and you're using words to mean things that nobody else uses them for in English, so I cannot possibly tell you what you think you are saying when you use "self-promotion." Just replace it with almost literally any other phrasing that reflects what you think and you'll be fine. --erachima talk 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination rationale is clearly mistaken, so this should probably be a speedy keep. That said, the amount of content in this article is slight enough that I see little reason this can't be covered as part of OS-tan, so feel free to merge it once the discussion's over. --erachima talk 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • OS-tan includes the other browser personifications. --erachima talk 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or merge somewhere as suggested by some users. Not notable enough to have a standalone article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Why should I have a User Name?, would you be willing to reconsider now as more content, as well as multiple reliable sources, have been added to the article? Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To be fair, a google search for 藍澤祈 provides plenty of hits from computer software and technology news websites, plenty of them that are major sites from Hong Kong and Taiwan with significant readership. WP:NONENG sources can also be used to assess WP:GNG. --benlisquareTCE 05:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Wikicology, would you be willing to reconsider now that the article has been substantially changed, and multiple reliable sources added? Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge Keep or Merge to Moe anthropomorphism and/or OS-tan - The sentence "Aizawa was adopted by Microsoft Singapore" is notable as a major company adopting a moe mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am revising my opinion per the sourcing below but have not left out my merging opinion should this not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: In the article reference 1 is a blog, reference 2 is blog, reference 3 is a Youtube video, reference 4 is a blog. bpage (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@User:Bfpage, would you be willing to change your stance now that the unreliable sources have been removed and a number of reliable ones added? Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that Bfpage has changed his vote to "keep" below. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I'm not sure if WP:BEFORE was followed properly here - there's a large number of sources available. I confess that some of these may not be considered reliable, but the majority certainly are:
  1. http://www.cnet.com/news/meet-microsofts-new-anime-ie-it-girl-inori-aizawa/
  2. http://www.cnet.com/news/befriending-a-cutesy-anime-kid-ie-11-cozies-up-to-windows-7/
  3. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/official-mascot-internet-explorer-isan-anime-character/
  4. http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5073934/microsofts-anime-inspired-internet-explorer-ad-is-its-best-yet
  5. http://kotaku.com/the-internet-reacts-to-internet-explorers-new-anime-ma-1460176000
  6. http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/11/07/internet-explorer-looks-to-win-back-fans-with-new-moeanime-mascot-inori-aizawa/
  7. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2013-11-07/microsoft-singapore-creates-anime-inspired-mascot-for-internet-explorer
  8. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsoft-has-a-crazy-new-anime-mascot-2013-11
  9. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/internet-explorer-isnt-the-only-one-with-an-anime-girl-mascot
  10. http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/internet-explorer-11-inori-aizawa-anime-does-little-to-promote-browser/
  11. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/124923-internet-explorer-goes-anime-with-inori-aizawa-its-new-official-mascot
  12. http://techreport.com/news/25618/microsoft-pimps-internet-explorer-with-anime-mascot
  13. http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/7/5076356/microsoft-anime-character-photo-essay
  14. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/microsoft_bizarre_inori_ie_campaign/
And this is only just the english-language sources, and not considering the non-english sources as User:Benlisquare has pointed out above. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Admitedly I am a new, new-article reviewer and tagged this article for deletion. If you found so many references, why didn't go back to the article and insert them? Wouldn't that have made this whole discussion moot? bpage (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
As I stated way back at the beginning, this discussion should have been closed as a procedural keep and then dealt with via expansion or merging, but that didn't happen. --erachima talk 03:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've now done just that. These sort of things take time, especially as I have limited free time today. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge per Satellizer and Knowledgekid87. I know Satellizer said "Strong Keep" but in fact his reasons rule out keeping because:
  1. WP:NOTADVERT supersedes WP:GNG; it is not allowed to advertise even notable topics in Wikipedia. Articles are required to cover their subjects from a non-neutral point of view.
  2. I clicked on those links. They are passing coverage (the opposite of significant coverage required by WP:GNG) of fiction-only details (the opposite of encyclopedic coverage required by WP:PLOT). Some of these use mentions of other Microsoft ads to add to their volume. For example, how can this link be considered an evidence of notability? Notability means the subject must have impact.
  3. Suppose the article is kept. What are we going to do with these links? Write one article that contains something like this:

    "Inori Aizawa is Microsoft's Internet Explorer mascot. She hates bullies and likes ice cream.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

    Or are we going to dump them into a Further Reading section, a la the advertisement tactic of "What our satisfied customers say" section? Or are we going to repeat:

    "TheVerge said IA likes ice cream. The Register said IA likes ice cream. Business Insider said IA likes ice cream. ..."

Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Except, of course, this article isn't an advert. It's written in a neutral fashion and the article isn't helping to promote Microsoft or its products in any way. How is NPOV being violated? The article merely describes Inori. And even if the article is promotional in tone, AfD isn't cleanup, so if the GNG is met the article should still be kept.
2) Inori is the sole/main focus of all those articles. That's the very opposite of what "passing coverage" is, which is a passing mention of the subject.
3) Nope, the sources contain much more information than that. And coverage by multiple RS shows that Inori meets the GNG regardless of "what are we going to do with these links".
As a BTW, I won't be able to reply until tomorrow, it's getting late here. And I'll be willing to clean up the article a bit in time too. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • So, you believe the best reply is just to say that opposite of things that I see? i.e. I can see that article is an advert, but you say "Except, of course, this article isn't an advert." Should I believe my eyes or you? Next, I didn't say Inori isn't the subject of those articles. What I said is that news outlets will write an article if Microsoft so much as poops, but such material is not Wikipedia material per WP:PLOT. (I cannot stress it enough that in Wikipedia, bombardment misrepresents notability.) Finally, the last items isn't what I said: Sources do not contain enough material to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". In fact, they are pretty biased.
Another point that is significant is that all your defenses are based on saving the article from deletion, while I said "merge" not "delete". The article does not have sufficient contents anyway and per WP:SIZERULE, can be merged, even if the outcome of this AfD is to keep it. No hard feelings... Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Sorry but the problem here is you haven't proven that the article is an advert. I've made my reasoning clear as to why I believe the article isn't; it's written neutrally and isn't promoting Inori/Microsoft in any way. Most of the comments here say "delete because WP:NOTADVERT" without giving any clear reason why.
2) I don't really see how WP:PLOT applies, as none of the sources I provided consists of only a "summary-only description" of Inori. Nor do I see why WP:Bombardment applies, as a)Inori isn't a single event and b)as I said above, Inori is the main focus, not a trivial mention. Some of the sources do indeed contain similar content, but most of is different.
3) That's a pretty big misinterpretation of NPOV there. What NPOV states is that all viewpoints by individual sources should be given a fair and proportional representation, not the sources themselves. So basically, sources which praise Inori should be added, but sources criticizing her should be added as well. That's what NPOV means, not "this source is biased so we shouldn't add it."
And I never claimed that you were trying to delete the article, I'm just saying that Inori is notable enough, and enough content and sources exist, for her to have her own independent page. Apologies for the late reply, I only just had time now to do so. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, sir. No need for repeated apologies; I'm retired and myself am in no hurry to come here. If you are indeed not pounding at the deletion prospect, let's dispense your three-itemed list and turn our attention to merge vs. keep only. The clearest motive for the merger is the small size, per WP:SIZERULE. What do you say? Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, after the article expansion today at 10,311 bytes I daresay the article is large enough as a standalone. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, SIZERULE accounts for the "readable prose size", which is around 4889 bytes now. According to the same page, for an article to survive a merge just on the ground of size, it needs to have ten times the current size. (40 kb). But this way just an explanatory text. I won't take side in this post. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If the article is less than 1 kB it says "If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub." That's not the case here. If its >50kb it says you need to split it into different articles, and if its <40kb you don't need to split it based on size. Dream Focus 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not the case here because you are reading the wrong entry. The entry of interest is "< 40 kB: Length alone does not justify division". For the record: 4889 bytes roughly equals only four kilobytes, not forty. (I thought better let you know, because maybe you read the wrong entry because you miscalculated.) Additionally, "> 50 kB" reads "greater than fifty kilobytes". "< 40 kB" reads "less than forty kilobytes". Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FleetCommand, How can you claim to be retired here and on your user page when you contribution [26] clearly show you are certainly not? Dream Focus 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting question. Because, you see, I've heard Fleet Command's "retired, not dead!" speech before and I have seen our fellow admin Mark Arsten who has been having zero edits for a long time refusing to consider himself retired. And then, there is a certain user that I don't name who says he is retired but actually received a temporary 48-hours block for edit warring. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's put it this way: There has been a great change in my wiki-life consisting of a severe reduction in my editing rights, privileges and habits. I thought "retired" is more polite, less controversial and more accurate than "great purge". As far as it concerns you, Dream Focus, I no longer nominate your beloved anime and manga articles for deletion, so you have nothing to complain. But I don't want to digress from the topic any further, at least not here. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Fleet Commander FleetCommand, where are you seeing the advert? I don't know whether it's an interpretation thing, but I'm not seeing it myself. Is the Samsung Galaxy S5 article an advert, or is it a page that merely explains the topic? Is the AT&T article an advert for AT&T? What are the components of a page which make an article an advert, and where are they seen in Inori Aizawa? --benlisquareTCE 08:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please forgive me for being frank, but you've written my username wrong. If you were me, would you take claim of "I'm not seeing it myself" from a person who wouldn't see your username correctly? I myself might have dismissed it as a trifle if you hadn't asked for the proof strictly in the form of evidence, as if we're dealing with a scientific matter. Proof, you know, can come in the form of testimony, authority and definition as well. So, let's dispense with wordplay altogether: Both you and I have already stated our opposing opinions and failed to persuade each other. All that is left is to gently agree to disagree, especially, because I think the outcome of this discussion would be to both our satisfaction. Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I really did get your name wrong. My bad. --benlisquareTCE 11:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable sources have been found showing it clearly meets the general notability guidelines. It is not an advertisement. Dream Focus 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, Dream Focus. It's been long time... Still having a soft spot for manga/anime characters, don't you? We used to clash a lot over this fact in AfDs, remember? You always said "Keep" and I always said "Delete". No hard feelings though. Just nostalgia. Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:GNG per reliable sources identified by User:Satellizer.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added a substantial number of reliable references and sources to the article, which is now in a very different state as compared to when it was nominated, as well as when some of the initial delete !votes were cast. It is my request that the closing admin please take this into consideration. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, it received significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Notable. Cavarrone 06:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While previously sitting on the fence without much of a really strong opinion either way, I'm now inching towards a keep following Satellizer's major rehaul today. I was more neutral and indifferent earlier on since the page was rather barebones and didn't demonstrate much notability, however now it seems more salvageable and compliant with the expectations that we have for these kinds of articles. My primary concern is notability, and as of now it's been properly addressed; I still disagree with the argument that this page is an advert, since there's a difference between a promotional page and an article discussing an advertisement campaign (a la Category:Advertising campaigns, Category:Advertising slogans). --benlisquareTCE 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw that someone asked me to reconsider my so-called vote. I believe, if things have changed, we must expect the nominator to change their stance; no need to ask every user one by one. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across as nagging, it's just that often AfD viewers make "drive-by" !votes and then never visit the AfD again. I felt it was necessary to inform the !voters whom commented before the article overhaul that things have indeed changed, and the notification only works if the user's userpage is linked to, thus I did it separately. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Your vote should be on what you believe, not just repeating what the nominator says. Satellizer has significantly increased the size of the article and added in a well referenced reception section. Is there any doubt that this passes WP:GNG now? Dream Focus 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    In AfD's in general, the nominator's stance is only crucial when they are the sole argument for deletion. In the case of this AfD in particular, the nominator's stance is irrelevant, being factually incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of several policy terms. --erachima talk 12:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The nom has equal voice. No one's !vote is ever "irrelevant". In this case it just isn't as relevant as the Keeps, by some opinions. -- GreenC 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Equal voice does not mean equal weight, and the person to whom I was replying went further and thought that being the nominator somehow granted extra weight. As to the general issue, of course there are irrelevant votes. Determining which opinions are grounded and which are irrelevant is the entire reason we have humans close these discussions rather than a mechanized up/down vote. --erachima talk 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a democracy but it is consensus-based and sometimes consensus is to ignore the rules. Much of the complaint about Wikipedia and AfD in particular is its rules-lawyering atmosphere, where only the specialist warriors excel, so there has been a sort of unspoken shift to give weight to a common sense plain language argument even if not to the letter of the rules. All you can do is employ the rules and hope for the best, but I've seen enough rightfully irrelevant !votes carry the day. -- GreenC 04:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello, "Why should I have a User Name?"
    Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep. As long as there are valid "Merge" recommendations, there is little I can do in the way of withdrawing. As for changing, nominator should never change the nomination. (Minor edits to the nomination is only possible by leaving the old prose with strike-through style applied to it.) But you needn't worry. Article has certainly improved so much so that the character is no longer self-promoting. There have been strides in the way of improving NPOV since I last posted.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello Lisa. As far as I know when there is "no consensus" an article is not deleted. So I don't understand why people who want to keep an(y) article, seeing that there is no consensus, simply do not forget the relevant discussion and use the time to make another article or other articles or edit existing ones in WP. Are we here to prove we have the best arguments or to develop this project? (If you reply please let it not have any element to bring me back here and lose more time. I want to work elsewhere.) Nice to meet you. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Unanimous consensus" is not the synonym of "no consensus"; it is the antonym. "Unanimous consensus" means "every and each !vote reads the same". "No consensus" means they highly vary and their description text don't tally either. Also the "no quorum" rule does not apply to AfD. Finally, the "developing project" argument is one that impresses no one because the nominator has already decided that deletion is actually an improvement. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Codename Lisa, please don't spread blatant incorrect information, there are no such rules as you wrote above. Withdrawing a nomination is allowed at any time, and in cases "the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing" it is strongly suggested. And you can partially or wholly strike your nominations using Template:Strikethrough at any time, as well as you can add a new comment next to the old deletion rationale (possibly preceded by a bold note titled "Additional comment", "Update", "On second thought", "Withdrawn"). Cavarrone 04:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Cavarrone: You should read your own links more carefully:

    ...if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.

    And before accusing anyone of spreading misinformation, please consider that he or she might simply not agree with your point of view. Discussion in AfDs often get heated; it is important to keep a cool head and assume good faith.
    And by the way, "information" is a non-countable group noun, and is never written in plural form. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @FleetCommand:, lol, please point us on where the sentence you cited says that "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep"! A nominator could withdrawn his/her nomination and the discussion could be remain open, but this is another issue. Yes, Codename Lisa is spreading misinformation, and you too. BTW I don't care one bite that she withdraws her nom or not, just care about you two do not spread blatant misinformation. Cavarrone 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The pot calling the kettle black again... in presence of a direct quotation. So, thanks, I guess. You made my day. Fleet Command (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way "you cited" means "you showed us where it says". So "point us on where the sentence you cited says" means "cite your cited sentence" or "point to where you've already pointed us", which are admission that I've already done. And "misinformation" can never be "blatant", only "patent" or "flagrant". So much for being an autoreviewer... Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Then, a most complete citation: "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion." I assume you are unable to see the "little" difference, but let the others judge if it is the same than "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep". However it is always funny discussing with someone who pretends that the sentence "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time" actually means "The nominator may NOT withdraw the nomination at any time". My best, Cavarrone 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "[...] I merge the article anyway, regardless of your worthless votes." You fail to see how disruptive that would be? Consensus is pretty damn important, not to mention policy, and it's really quite insulting when you use phrases such as calling votes "worthless", you really believe Wikipedia to be a place where you can do whatever you please, and the views of everyone else is "worthless" when compared to your own? Your interpretation of withdrawing AfDs is just as flawed as your interpretation of NPOV, I quote directly from WP:WITHDRAWN "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed." Please take note of the word anytime, and the second sentence, aka Nominator withdrawing the nomination DOES NOT EQUAL the AfD getting closed. And gee thanks for telling another editor to "suck it", how very civil and mature of you, I must say. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am a bit ashamed that I discomforted you, Satellizer. After all, you're the guy who did all the hard work. So, even if "you" in my sentence applied to all people here (which isn't), you were credited by your action, not vote. And if there is any consolation, only "!vote" has value; "votes" are worthless anyway. Now, as long as "withdrawing" equals "short-circuiting", it does not matter which is used. However, as for saying "suck it", yes, it was inexcusable. Sorry. (Although I checked the dictionary and it means "get serious". Why do people think it is an insult?) Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Apology accepted. As for the withdrawing thing, you can't "short-circuit" an AfD by withdrawing it, as the discussion would remain open anyway. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been expanded during the AfD. Some editors have claimed PR/Advertising, but neutral editors have worked on the article and genuinely believe it worth keeping. The sources are mostly independent and demonstrate some notability. -- GreenC 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I change my initial position now that more references are part of the article and appears to be notable. Thanks for all the input. This has been a learning experience for me.bpage (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that I've struck through your delete !vote above, as you've changed your stance and (I assume) forgot to do it yourself. Thanks. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (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.

Anime and manga categories, templates, and misc[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Utility pages[edit]

Related pages on other projects[edit]

Archives[edit]

You can find archived notices and information from this page on the following archive pages: