Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Fu Jimmy Chow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Sourceability is the issue, and this one is borderline. Some feel it's enough, others feel it's not, but there's no clear consensus about it. Mangojuicetalk 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Jimmy Chow

[edit]
Kung Fu Jimmy Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability not asserted. It lacks reliable third-party references. It has four references, three from a blog and one from Ain't It Cool News, which is also nothing more a blog "dedicated to rumors and reviews". Its publisher, Heavy.com might be notable, but just like not every book ever published by a notable publishing house is notable, not everything ever posted on such a website is notable. bogdan 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The references are enough for me. Different strokes, I guess. - Richfife 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's in the list of Wikipedia's newest articles on the Main Page, for crying out loud. -- 71.98.101.159 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I see one ref, the AICN piece, and going through the under 600 Google results I get, I don't see any other outside coverage except for news releases. I don't think this meets notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't aware it was necessary for an article to "assert notability". It merely had to be notable, requiring (for example) two non-trivial references. The AICN source cannot be discounted for notability given the content of the article and interview. So we have one reliable source. The other reference are not really blogs but are announcements from the development house itself and while I doubt they help for notability as not being independent, they should not be passed over with "oh, they're just blogs". There are other sources, but I haven't added them because they don't contain useful information for making an article. If you go over some of the 600 google hits you find the following:
  • It was the last job that the animator of the pilot episode did before his animation house folded.
  • It is one of Heavy's prime shows. In online discussions of other heavy shows, Chow is mentioned among the list of great things they've done.
So I think we have multiple non-trivial references.
Given that this show has only been around since April, I think it's doing some pretty fine business in achieveing notoriety and notability on the net. GDallimore (Talk) 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogs are not reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This delete vote is based on flawed information: The AICN article is not a blog. The blogs that are cited are not, as I have already pointed out, blogs by random people but are announcements by the production company and therefore meet the requirements for reliable sources that "the authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Francis. An article needs independent sources which I couldn't find on the web. *Cremepuff222* 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just re-read WP:NOTE and the entire basis for deleting this article is flawed. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, contrary to my poor memory, "multiple sources are generally preferred", but are not obligatory.
The subject of this article has received significant coverage in an AICN article, this being a secondary source that is on a significant website, not just a blog as asserted by the nominator. Perhaps the nominator has a thing against AICN, but it's an important site for covering up the minute news on all forms of entertainment and cannot be dismissed as unreliable. Therefore this article clearly meets the requirements set out in WP:NOTE.GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the coverage on AICN is an interview and interviews are primary sources not secondary. bogdan 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. The information comes from the primary source, so it is reliable when it comes to the history of the show, but it is being published by someone independent of the primary source, who also comments on the show, so it is a secondary source. GDallimore (Talk) 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based exclusively on primary sources. That's it. :-) bogdan 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. It's based on reliable information published in a secondary source. In any event, even if you're right, articles can be based on primary sources so long as they are merely descriptive (see last paragraph of this. The current article is mostly a description of the history behind the show and the theme song. It does not include raving commentary about how good it is or extended criticism of how silly it is or any other evaluation, although AICN themselves (in what is clearly a secondary source critique of the show) said things like "Few online anime-take-off's have brought this much craft to their work" and so forth. I've chosen not to include such things in a "reception" section until such time as there are more reliable reviews of the series to make a balanced article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being animated by a non-notable animator does not make it notable. It has to stand on its own! There are probably tens of thousands of "experienced animators" in the world... bogdan 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Perhaps notable in time through multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One AICN doesn't cut it, and blog coverage doesn't count. Once this is recognized more, an article then would be fine. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I had originally thought that, which was why I put the AICN in and did some hand-waving in relation to the other references. However, on re-reading WP:NOTE, it seems clear that one AICN is enough for notability, although more references would be preferred. GDallimore (Talk) 09:01, 12 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung_Fu_Jimmy_Chow&oldid=1142649257"