Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Kun

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, default to keep. Clearly not a consensus to delete here, and additional sources provided by Cunard pushed the consensus closer to an outright keep. However there is arguably still some validity to the WP:NOTNEWS argument, and a merge was another possibility discussed, so "no consensus" seems to be the correct close. Editors interested in a possible merge should discuss it on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Kun

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

Notability for inclusion into a encyclopaedia of this dog/company/product is questionable. NJA (t/c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? Grsz¹¹ 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The LA Times is a reliable source but the article needs to be rewritten. I see inconsistency in the name, a radon "what does -kun mean" part, and various other structural and tone issues. fetchcomms☛ 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned it up a bit, but need to know where the references go, as I don't have the links to them. fetchcomms☛ 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (or BLD1E in this case). This is a fairly standard quirky human interest story. Note that the LA Times citation in the article actually refers to an entry in a blog hosted by latimes.com; this was never in the paper. Chick Bowen 02:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS -- this kind of thing is not uncommon in Japan, but it should tell you something when the Japanese Wikipedia has no corresponding article. armagebedar (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an ongoing international news story for more than two years with coverage in media outlets in numerous countries. Mainstream coverage in English includes (for example): BBC and the LA Times. An editor with Japanese language abilities noted that the name can be rendered "ハート君" or "ハートくん" in Japanese and that Google news for ハート君 and Google news for "ハートくん" provide numerous sources such as: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral This article is no different than creating an article about Shady the cat in nova scotia who needed to get down from a tree from the fire department. Yes there were about 4 to 5 news articles on that cat in Canada. My point is is that its In the news and falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and just because it appears there doesnt make it notable forever, it may pass on. Some stories out of asia do not appear in western media for two years after. That is just my feeling of this, if consensus steers otherwise Im fine with that. I just dont think this is notable as a stand alone. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought merging here; Animal markings would be appropriate Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of merging there seems like a reasonable proposal. I'm not opposed to it. But I don't see how deletion of something that's received this level of news media coverage over this time period is useful. Certainly it's not a hard hitting historical or science article, but so what. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id perfer a merge most of all to Animal markings. The two key sources to me are the bbc and LA times. I think the local media comparitively the local media is just examples of in the news. The LA times article appears to me to be resemablance of a blog which if true isnt that high on notability (but i may be wrong here that its not a blog). The BBC artical has merit even though it is targeted towards kids. We have alot of negative articles though in the world and this is an example of positive outlooks on life, and yes that is encyclopedic in a way (at least to me). Additionally this is a young article. It hasnt been given time for it to improve (I can see it as in progress in a way and sources are coming) I cant see keeping it the way it is, The way the article stands needs fixing (prose, sourcing, veribablity). But thats not to say it cant be fixed, So Ill stand final at neutral on the article, Id perfer a merge, but i see your points above. and will not support deletion Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources you mention above, there are several lengthy non-English sources that demonstrate that Heart-kun is notable. See this article from gazeta.pl, this article from Primeira Edição, and this article from Rede Globo. Coverage in these sources is from 2007–2009, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a flash-in-the-pan story that will have been totally forgotten about within a few months. --DAJF (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good human interest story and important in Japan in particular.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a good interest story doesn't meet the WP:NOT#NEWS concerns of this article, If we have articles on every good interest story, wikipedia would be loaded with articles. Secret ^account 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billy Hathorn. There are lots of sources, including this news story from Brazil, this listing at Snopes.com, and this story at the Huffington Post. Also, although I know this is not a reason, the dog is cute. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, per WP:NOTNEWS SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it includes some more WP:RS's--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources and per the fact that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. WP:NOTNEWS was designed to eliminate topics that garnered only coverage for a short period of time. This is not the case here. Coverage from multiple news organizations that span several years and that are from different countries (Australia, Brazil, Poland, UK, US) indicates that Heart-kun is notable.
1. This article from BBC was published on July 11, 2007.
2. This article from Reuters was published on July 16, 2007.
3. This article from Rede Globo was published on July 17, 2007.
4. This article from the Daily Telegraph was published on July 10, 2007.
5. This article from gazeta.pl was published on January 18, 2008.
6. This article from Science World was published on February 4, 2008.
7. This article from WGHP was published on August 17, 2009.
8. This article from Primeira Edição was published on August 6, 2009.
9. This photography from Xinhua News Agency was published on August 6, 2009.
10. This blog from the Los Angeles Times was published on August 10, 2009.
Because there has consistently been coverage about the subject, and because news organizations from all over the world deem this dog to be worthy of reporting, Heart-kun easily passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to repeated independent sources listed above. Miyagawa (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stories from over two years span mean that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because there is continuing interest. The list of sources above clearly demonstrate passing WP:N. For those who mention the dog's cuteness, possibly that's attempting to apply WP:HOTTIE? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by Cunard's long list of sources, which confirms lasting, significant coverage in reliable sources. Ucucha 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heart-kun is clearly notable, as evidenced by Cunard's list of sources. -BloodDoll (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2010 (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.