Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:05, 11 November 2009

Magibon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination,for which they gave the following reasons in the edit summary: "Not a notable subject. Not even her name can be confirmed." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That user (the nominator of this AFD) is User:Pisomojado. —Lowellian (reply) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per last AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- sources in the article show enough notability for me. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per last AFD. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As demonstrated in the previous AfD discussion, reference sources already provided show ample coverage in the mainstream media in Japan (including the English-language press), which satisfies the basic notability criteria. The current absence of reliable published information regarding the person's real name is not a viable reason for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Plenty of media coverage by Japanese-language press. That the article should be deleted because her real name cannot be confirmed is a silly argument; Jack the Ripper's real name is unknown and cannot be confirmed, but that does not mean we should be deleting his article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per last AFD. Badagnani (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete When I first came across the Magibon article, I attempted to add her name (Margaret Lilian Adams) to the article. DAJF reverted my edits, stating that my sources were not notable and maintaining his stated position of guarding Magibon's Wikipedia page against disclosing personal information, which she would rather the world not know.

While I don't care about protecting a 23 year old attention seeker from her own self perpetuated meme-dom, I do respect the need for significant sources. I scoured the internet for more reliable sources with biographical information about the girl, and failed. I came to agree with DAJF-- that those sources don't exist. I landed on the conclusion which he is ironically resisting: that she is NOT NOTABLE. Not even her name can be reliably verified.

Jimbo himself, in introducing notability criterion, said the goal of the policy is an “attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something.” Though the Magibon article is admittedly sourced, very little is “'Significant coverage”' --none of which is in English.

English sources only briefly comment on her existence AS TRIVIAL, as a flash-in-the-pan Youtube meme, a flavor of the day. The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! There is no indication that she has any historical significance whatsoever, and, in fact, is already slipping back into obscurity.Pisomojado (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is a notable celebrity in Japan. Your argument for deletion includes uncomfortably/distastefully Anglocentric bias — that most sources are not in English is not a valid argument as to whether she is innately notable. This is precisely the type of systemic bias we want to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide coverage of human knowledge, not merely Anglophone knowledge. Wikipedia has many articles on historical figures from other cultures not well known in Anglosphere, for whom the majority of sources are in the language of that culture. —Lowellian (reply) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowellian, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that sources in Japanese are worthless because Japanese people are worthless, or some such garbage thinking. I'm saying that Japanese sources are hard for most of us to verify or determine the notability of, and therefore not preferable. Although, I will say that I find it peculiar that Magibon's Japanese wikipedia page is both shorter, and (as seen through google translator) more content rich with biography (including her real name) than the English version, while citing much fewer sources! Nevertheless, I stand by the assertion that her youtube success is a blip of pop culture not worthy of a Wikipedia article in any language.Pisomojado (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pisomojado: The article, for example cites Encyclopedia Dramatica (a site on Wikipedia's Arbcom blacklist) as a source! Hardly. Instead, it says There's more information in this juvenile wiki article. (Incidentally, the article, at something called "Encyclopedia Dramatica", is interminable and what little I read of it seems to have been composed by an logorrhaeic dimwit while drunk.) The Wikipedia article repeats this sentence, for no apparent reason. (I'm about to cut this bit.) The Gawker article is cited as an example of a kind of criticism. Notably so or otherwise, it is an example of this. The fact that it links to inanity is irrelevant. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per last AfD. Per closing admin: "Though this is a biography of a living person, the information in the article is cited to reliable sources, and insofar as that information is in the public sphere, then the article itself passes all requirements for Wikipedia articles," which I heartily endorse. The inability to verify her name says nothing for or against the notability of the recognisable entertainer identifiable as Magibon. ("Prince" and "Madonna" wouldn't be any less notable if we didn't know their birth names.) Plenty of reliable sources attest to her notability, including Japanese Weekly Playboy and multiple Japanese TV and radio outlets. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: re canvassing - contributors may wish to take note of this series of edits by the article nominator: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Possibly others. It appears User:Pisomojado is only notifying editors who have previously expressed a "delete" argument in prior AfDs of this debate, which is contrary to the vote canvassing policy at WP:Canvassing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why he notified me, but anyway he did -- and I said "keep" the last time around. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just got one too so either I was mistaken about canvassing or Pisomojado is fixing it. Either way I've struck out the comment above. I'm not having an on-the-ball day today it seems. :-( - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, DustFormsWords, for your retraction. Anyone can check my contribution history and make sure that I've invited everyone to the party. I believe I have.Pisomojado (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd also like to point out that Magibon is still an orphan.Pisomojado (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument for deletion. Moreover, it's a borderline orphan with two incoming links; WP:Orphan recommends three or more, but also says "One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant". --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Blame the stupid attention on the tabloids, but the subject appears to fulfill the criteria in WP:BIO Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination) was closed in good faith as keep less than two weeks ago by an admin in good standing. I looked at his talkpage and no one has asked him to take a second look and no one has brought this up at WP:DELREV. I haven't yet looked at the article or the arguments for and against so I have no !vote at this time but I do move to close this argument on procedural grounds, you can't keep nominating an article until you get the decision that you are looking for. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? The last closing was closer to 54 than to 2 weeks ago, by my count. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oops, wrong year (he says with a red face), nevermind. J04n(talk page) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clearly Internet nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.206.197 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Do you mean that the subject is "Internet nonsense", or that this article is "Internet nonsense"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article can't be speedily deleted if it has a ton of Speedy Keeps on it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteJust delete it already! It's going to keep getting nominated, so why not just f**ing delete it already to save people from the trouble? An internet celebrity released a whole DVD, featured in men's magazines in Japan, but I can't find a single thing about her in here, so why does this far less notable someone get a whole article to herself? So I ask myself, after 4(yes,FOUR!) nominations for deletion, "Why is this thing still here?" There's a reason this "article" keeps getting nominated!It's a s**ty,s**ty article with no way for improvement(which isn't helped by the insignificance of the person it is about), it doesn't meet the criteria, so why the hell are you keeping it? There's obviously something wrong with it.Ariana-hime (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had more asterisks, I'd think you were coyly attempting to say "fucking" and "shitty"; but as it is, you've lost me. ¶ Why the hell it has been kept so far has been explained by the person who closed the AfDs so far. ¶ When you say "it doesn't meet the criteria", which criteria do you have in mind? ¶ On the non-existence of an article on some other sleb, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Keep, the article, when nominated, had sufficient proof of notabity from reliable sources to defeat this attempt. Yes, the subject is irritating, but yes, she's notable. Move along, nothing to see here :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This person isn't exactly notable. The notability requirements should be changed to prevent pages like this and others from wasting space. This is the 4th nomination. There shouldn't have to be a 5th. Justin Herbert (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 *:If you had more asterisks, I'd think you were coyly attempting to say "fucking" and "shitty"; but as it is, you've lost me. &para; Why the hell it has been kept so far has been explained by the person who closed the AfDs so far. &para; When you say "it doesn't meet the criteria", which criteria do you have in mind? &para; On the non-existence of an article on some other sleb, see [[Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#General_avoidance_principle|this]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Sigh'''. Keep, the article, when nominated, had sufficient proof of notabity from reliable sources to defeat this attempt. Yes, the subject is irritating, but yes, she's notable. Move along, nothing to see here :) [[User:Xymmax|<b>Xymmax</b>]] [[User_talk:Xymmax|<small><sup>So let it be written</sup></small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Xymmax|<small><sub>So let it be done</sub></small>]] 01:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Delete''' This person isn't exactly notable. The notability requirements should be changed to prevent pages like this and others from wasting space. This is the 4th nomination. There shouldn't have to be a 5th. [[User:Justin Herbert|Justin Herbert]] ([[User talk:Justin Herbert|talk]]) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)