Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Moon

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. There's no call for accusations of discrimination--all articles must have independent references and an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Moon[edit]

This is an article about a sprite art cartoon. Googling "7th Moon" yields so many unrelated hits it's futile trying to wade through them all, but it's telling that the website for this thing has had a grand total of 291 hits since 2004, and one of those was me just now. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. I'd also like to comment: the Geocities... it burns!!! tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor the provided references even assert notability, the "official page" raises serious doubts that it might be anyway, per nom, and a google search yields not a single additional reference. --Hit #293 (Amalthea) (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page was created as a prototype for stories of the kamishibai medium. It is underrepresented and I feel that the kamishibai page that exists on Wikipedia does not help because it does not demonstrate the creative potential of the kamishibai medium. By creating pages for each story, we can treat them in the same way as manga, anime or any other medium of storytelling. There are good stories, and the other authors are looking to the success of this particular wikipedia page to determine if it's worth putting forth the effort of educating others on these stories to draw in a wider audience. To delete this article not only undermines 7th Moon, but also the efforts of all kamishibai authors whose work is considered less legitmate than any other medium because of the discrimination demonstrated here. Kamishibai is a great medium, and while 7th Moon may not be the greatest example, it is the first to go to wikipedia, and other great stories that are noteworthy will remain in obscurity if this page is removed. It is a legitmate medium and deserves equal representation as comics, manga, graphic novels etc. Furthermore, I have come across many pages containg content that is not necessarily noteworthy, including out of print RPGs that were barely known when they were in print such as Blue Planet, Trinity, and Gamma World. While searching for angels, I came across a link to a wikipedia page in english on a game that had only been released in Japan. Wikipedia is littered with references to obscure stories, and it is not fair that this page gets singled out by a few readers who happen to not care for the story. Today, 7th Moon is just a sprite kami read by a handful of people, but one day it may be well known either as a kamishibai or as a professional cartoon, and it's legitimacy should not be diminished because it is not well known right now. It is a story, it is published, even if in a poorly known medium and just because it wasn't released by Random House, Marvel, or Disney, that should not be grounds for deletion. Perhaps the obscurity of this story should get it removed, but if that's so, then we should consider the removal of any article on any B-grade movie(such as Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), or any TV series that got canceled for low ratings. I would ask that before the final decision is made, that all those involved actually read the story, it is available for free through two of the external links, and then determine whether it is as good as the anime that it is compared to. Furthermore, to the editors of this site, I know that this notice for deletion did not come up until I notified the kamishibai community of it's existence and I have reason to believe that this may be sabotage from haters who do not like this story to begin with and are being biased against it. If a proven unbiased judge can determine the worthiness of this article, I will accept their judgement, whether it is to keep it or remove it, but I do ask that all factors be taken into consideration from both sides and that this isn't just removed because the only people who take the time to comment on it are people who don't like it. I'd also note that the page history shows that someone who has not commented went through the page and fixed some flaws without noting whether it should be deleted or not, so at least one wikipedian seems to think it's okay. Honestly, I realized all of this might happen when I started this page, but I also took care to make sure it met wikipedia requirements as best as I could, and I would question whether there's even anything left to make new wikipedia pages for if this doesn't make the cut. I apologize to the wiki foundation for wasting their time on this, I seriously thought I'd be blazing a trail for a new medium to be represented on wikipedia, and I never wanted for any controversy to come up over it, I honestly thought this would be a positive contribution to wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidariude (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't know what this is about, to be honest; I've never heard of the series or of the "kamishibai" medium. I'll just say this, Hidariude: it would help your case if there were some articles you could mention as sources (see WP:SOURCES); maybe noteworthy publications/people mentioned or reviewed your work somewhere? We don't have a wikipedia page about every deviantart user who hopes to make it big... anyway, it seems as though you are looking at Wikipedia as your chance of getting your work out there. Please don't use wikipedia that way; the point of wikipedia is to have articles about that which has already been talked about by notable sources somewhere in the world. There are other places to showcase your work, other wikis even. Once you make it somewhere else, then it would make sense to have an article here. Most of us are not experts in art here, so we rely on others to decide what is worthy of inclusion and what is not; there's even a rule about it. Esn (talk) 06:13, 2 August 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.