Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy
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 Keep. ChetblongT C 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article has been tagged for speedy with the reason being that it was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi, and is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted. (CSD G4). The hang-on request noted that "I'm not sure what the original version of this article looked like, since I didn't even know there was an original version. However, this one has 3 secondary references, which would seem to meet the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Also, several of the reasons given in the AfD mentioned in the speedy nomination (VANITY, NPOV, NOR, COPYVIO, AB) no longer apply. So a speedy isn't appropriate." In comparing the two articles I do see some differences which makes this hang-on request worthy of consideration by the wiki community. --VS talk 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (First debate link to article of similar name is here)--VS talk 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to clarify, are you neutral in this discussion, then? Just want to know if you're voting to delete by nomination or just observing administrative protocol. Buspar (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Yes I do not have an opinion on this article. Thank you for your question.--VS talk 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From reading the old AfD, the article was deleted under a different name for not meeting WP:WEB. Looks like the argument last time was that it only had one secondary source, the Hess publication, last time, which isn't enough to establish notability. But this time there are three secondary sources, so this seems to be satisfied. Buspar (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite a few of the arguments on the previous AFD were that one of the comic's authors (Xuanwu) had contributed to the previous version; he has yet to appear in the edit logs of this version, and the AfD applies to this version, not the previous one. A separate case for deleting this version has not been made, but assuming it is implied that the old reasons (WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:AB) still apply: WEB no longer applies per Buspar and VirtualSteve; the article is not (and never was) primarily about the comic's authors, so AB does not apply; the comic's authors have not edited this version, so VANITY does not apply; COPYVIO does not apply to this version (and had been fixed in the previous version before the AfD was complete anyway); NPOV applied neither to the old version nor to this version (the only argument that it did was that one of the comic's authors contributed, but he contributed in a NPOV manner, and again, said author has yet to even contribute to this version); and both the original version and this version cited sources, so NOR does not apply. That seems to leave no reason to delete. Winged Cat (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:WEB says an article needs multiple non-trivial sources and I spot 3, plus a primary published by a reputable third party. About the only thing I can see here to argue for deletion is quibbling over whether the sources given count as trivial. The two online sources don't seem to be trivial, however, since: (1) they don't simply give the Internet address, (2) they don't simply report when the content is updated, (3) they're not brief summaries of the content (the New Haven Register article is about how this comic and others are being used to teach kids, the other mentions that one of the creators has served as a panelist at a notable convention), and (4) neither source is a directory. Since we clearly have multiple non-trivial sources, this article passes WP:WEB strongly. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Winged and and the anon above me. Although I'm not completely convinced that the New Haven Register is a reliable source (I'm not inclined to consider local newspapers to be very reliable and as a resident of New Haven my impression of the NHR isn't exactly very favorable). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does keep mean keep the article? Or the AfD? Keep the article, remove the AfD. AfDs must actually have something seriously wrong with it, they should not simply be because of a repost or "non-notability". "Non-notability" should never be the sole issue. Let's look at Strange Candy, shall we? This comes up as AfD (guess who always nominates it) again and again, for probably the same "reasons" as claimed. Is it notable? Well, let's see... the host forum, Professor forum is reasonably active, and not just this, the webcomic is also hosted and discussed on another site called Ponju.net (few webcomics have support of TWO different forums). Second, the comic itself can be viewed as notable for its sheer length and run-time (few comics run for 6 years, making it additionally notable). So in at least two ways, it has been shown as notable. Is the page copyright violated then? Nope, the page is actually very well-sourced. The only valid reason given is that it is a repost. Well, let's think about this, if the AfD in the first place was a good call, why did anyone bother to repost it? Except on uncyclopedia, few articles that are patent nonsense or otherwise considered junk ever get revived. Some fanbase must have need of the information (either to keep character names straight and remember information, or simply to learn side information about the authorship) for it to be revived. -(removed the trivia section) Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as recreation of deleted material that is not substantially different from the previous AfD. This topic is still non-notable, we still lack information verifiable from multiple non-trivial sources, and we therefore end up with an article based primarily on original research, which gives this topic undue weight over similar non-notable comics. For example, the best source we have is a story from the New Haven Register that is so trivial it doesn't even mention this webcomic's address, or when it is updated, or any of the characters' names, or any of the comic's stories, or the type of art in the comic, or any single quality of the comic at all. It instead gives us the phone number of the library, the hours and cost of one of their programs, three paragraphs of detail about a ten-year-old's comic called Moosey Moose, and an entire paragraph about the "Can of Inspiration." Why? Because, based on the sources we have, this webcomic is less notable than a single library's after-school program, or a comic a ten-year-old made up one day, or a can "on the table, filled with slips of paper bearing words and phrases intended to spark thought." We honestly have better sources for an article on Cans filled with slips of paper than we do this comic. Keep in mind that instructors use comics in teaching all the time. It is a common, not a notable achievement that a comic was used in teaching, and it is certainly not a notable achievement that an instructor used one of their own comics while teaching. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "We therefore end up with an article based primarily on original research." My understanding is that if an article assert notability (which this does) and that the assertion of notability is backed by secondary sources (which it is), that is sufficient to keep an article, even if the content summary is based mainly on primary sources (i.e. the comic itself). So WP:OR doesn't appear to be an issue here. On the notability issue, the reporter, who appears to have been observing a session, thought the use of this comic was important enough to mention it explicitly by name. I count two paragraphs dedicated to the use of comics in the project, in which this one is mentioned twice alongside Questionable Content and another I'm not familiar with. This suggests an importance beyond it being incidental. Buspar (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a notable achievement if you create a webcomic and then use your own comic while teaching in some volunteer library program. That is exceedingly trivial; not of encyclopedic importance. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a specific basis for your argument of triviality? Otherwise it would seem to be, as GarryKosmos below puts it, a matter of opinion. The reporter thought it was important enough to mention and I think her judgment in the matter carries more weight in this sort of discussion. Buspar (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS Just because something was mentioned in a newspaper does not mean it is of encyclopedic importance. Newspapers write about the trivial happenings at local schools and libraries all the time. And again, a comic a ten-year-old made up one day got more substantive coverage in that article than this webcomic did. And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial and does not meet our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV. --Dragonfiend (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "not news" applies here, because the article here isn't an announcement, sports coverage, or tabloid. I think you're probably arguing from the stance that while the event is notable, the comic (like an individual) isn't. But that's countered by "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event," as there's more than one secondary source in this article plus a primary. "And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial." I didn't have to describe it with mention, I just chose to use that word. I could have also used "highlighted," "recognized," "acknowledged," or a dozen other synonyms. Please refrain from nitpicking word choice, it's not conducive to a good AfD discussion. :) "We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV." Can you identify an instance of OR in the article? I'm pretty sure there isn't, since the assertions of notability are supported by sources. The presence of POV (again, I'm pretty there isn't any, but if you spot some feel free to fix it) is weak grounds for deletion, per WP:AFD. I understand what you're getting at, but I think that's a standard to apply on a case by case basis. I say the comic being featured in the article, in the context of the other sources, satisfies notability, you say it doesn't. Again, it seems to come down to personal perspective. Buspar (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not "arguing from the stance that while the event is notable." This is a completely non-notable event at a local library. And yes, one could substitute several synonyms for "mentioned" to describe the triviality of the sources; one cannot however describe the sources as "Significant coverage [where] sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." As far as original research goes, the article is full of it. For example, the unattributed analysis that a particular character "is typically the most sarcastic of the group." --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "not news" applies here, because the article here isn't an announcement, sports coverage, or tabloid. I think you're probably arguing from the stance that while the event is notable, the comic (like an individual) isn't. But that's countered by "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event," as there's more than one secondary source in this article plus a primary. "And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial." I didn't have to describe it with mention, I just chose to use that word. I could have also used "highlighted," "recognized," "acknowledged," or a dozen other synonyms. Please refrain from nitpicking word choice, it's not conducive to a good AfD discussion. :) "We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV." Can you identify an instance of OR in the article? I'm pretty sure there isn't, since the assertions of notability are supported by sources. The presence of POV (again, I'm pretty there isn't any, but if you spot some feel free to fix it) is weak grounds for deletion, per WP:AFD. I understand what you're getting at, but I think that's a standard to apply on a case by case basis. I say the comic being featured in the article, in the context of the other sources, satisfies notability, you say it doesn't. Again, it seems to come down to personal perspective. Buspar (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS Just because something was mentioned in a newspaper does not mean it is of encyclopedic importance. Newspapers write about the trivial happenings at local schools and libraries all the time. And again, a comic a ten-year-old made up one day got more substantive coverage in that article than this webcomic did. And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial and does not meet our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV. --Dragonfiend (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a specific basis for your argument of triviality? Otherwise it would seem to be, as GarryKosmos below puts it, a matter of opinion. The reporter thought it was important enough to mention and I think her judgment in the matter carries more weight in this sort of discussion. Buspar (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a notable achievement if you create a webcomic and then use your own comic while teaching in some volunteer library program. That is exceedingly trivial; not of encyclopedic importance. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as the sources seem valid per discussion above and a Google search shows enough general interest in the strip that an article on the subject would be beneficial and useful to the readers. The list of sources can (and I am sure will) be expanded. I believe the aims of the encyclopedia would be better served with keeping and improving the article rather than deleting it. --Ubardak (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The above reasons for keeping are sound. It clearly passes the notability guidelines for articles of its type. The only objection raised so far has been about the strength of one of three secondary sources (which still leaves it with two good ones), and as Buspar correctly points out that objection is more a matter of opinion than policy. GarryKosmos (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which two "good" sources are those? --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The fact that this article or a similar article was deleted before is irrelevant. The rationale used to delete it before may have been addressed in the current article as written. Then again it may not but, unless there is some independent rationale for its deletion, this article should stay. Queerudite (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (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.