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 of the debate was Delete. After discounting newer editors (100 edits or less), I see four commenters for keep versus eleven for deletion. The established Wikipedians who argued for the inclusion of this article said relatively little in so doing -- this may yet other case where outside vote solicitation was ultimately self-defeating, as the dialogue was muddied by editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia. The arguments laid out in the nomination and concurrences were never fully rebutted. Xoloz 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okashina Okashi

[edit]

WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, & WP:AB

WEB: Google test -wikipedia -forums =~598 entries (Most of the sites are fansites and discussion forums not caught in the -forum.)

The article fails to meed WP:WEB.
1)The site has not been the subject of multi non-trivial published works.

In addition the site does not even include a trivial link mentioned in a Lexis-Nexis search of US newspapers for the last two years.

2)The site has won no major/recognized awards.
3)This content is not distro'd via an independant online publisher.
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
4) If any of these criteria exist the article does not provide proof via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Furthermore, this article cites a "large forum" per the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

COPYVIO:The article contains The text: Information quoted verbatim from the Okashina Okashi Character page with the comment: <!--This was submitted to Wikipedia by comic author ([[User:Xuanwu]]) and is NOT a copyright violation.-->.
However the page from which they are copied states that "Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy is ©2001-2005 by Emily Snodgrass, Allison Brownlow, Karen Olympia, and John Lee Baird and is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics." This is a probable violation of the Wikipedia GFDL.

Additional factors:
AB, NPOV, & VANITY:
The article is heavily edited by the writers of the comic.
NOR:
Finally, no original research. Nothing other than primary sources were cited for this page.

For the above reasons, this article should be removed (or heavily trimmed, or the copyright owners should put the things they want to include in GFDL license.) -- Kunzite 22:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that argument were true then every site hosted on geocities would satisfy #3 of WP:WEB. Choice of hosting company does not make a website notable. --Kunzite 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comicgenesis is not Geocities. It's an online publisher of webcomics, not a free website host. It does have some quality control, and it is essentially the 'amateur wing' of Keenspot. "Strange Candy" (Okashina Okashi) is well-known, with links from Megatokyo at one time; it's one of the more established comics on Comicgenesis/Keenspace. If you felt OO didn't satisfy WP:WEB, then neither would almost any other Keenspace/Comicgenesis comic, as webcomics are rarely referenced or reviewed in print and therefore do not usually satisfy #1, except for those that have won awards (#2); what is your criterion for keeping the entries of any of the others? Do you feel they are also not notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia? I still say keep; I feel that deleting their already-existing entries is contentiously and arbitarily destroying valuable reference material for which Wikipedia is well known. Of course, you're the editors, it's your wiki, it doesn't aim to be complete, and you are of course free to disagree. 81.2.97.157 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a list of others. I'll evaluate the notability and put those up who do not meet WP:WEB as well. I'm not discriminating against this one comic.
The problem is that just because it is published by a publisher with some standards for content acceptance DOES NOT MEANT THAT IT IS NOTABLE. We certainly do not have an article for every scientific book put out by Elsevier, we don't have an article for every science fiction book put out by Tor, or even every history book put out by Random House. We also do not create an article for every single dissertation made the post-graduate students at the University of Michigan. These are places that publish works which more-likely-than not are more notable and contain more important subjects than this web comic. Why don't we have articles for these things? Because notability is not determined by the publisher or the fact that something has been published. Notability is not determined by who links to the site.
If a webcomic is notable it should be listed. You mention Megatokyo which has won national awards and has been published by a non-vanity press, and is listed as one of the top manga-style publications sold in the country by a third party record keeper. It deserves its own article. I hate to put this comic down, as it seems the author has worked hard on his this article, but it's just not notable and it shouldn't get a free ride Megatokyo's or Keenspace's coattails into the notability column. --Kunzite 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have a Comic Genesis strip [1]. I can very much say that it does not deserve its own article on that basis alone. Nifboy 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kunzite and Nifboy on this: simply being on Keenspace does not grant notability (this was a point I agreed with when I helped craft WP:WEB). My argument for notability, however, is not based on who it is published by. So pointing out that publisher and notability are not causally related does nothing to weaken my own arguments for OO's notability. :) Xuanwu 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
X-number of people "knowing" about something or using it in a academic setting is not the stuff of notability. Does the math textbook that they use have an entry on wikipedia? Should a class assignment on diagraming sentences that uses cartoons drawn by a student-teacher in Fargo, North Dakota use them? I assisted a librarian in creating a set of library instruction handouts that have been used by 8,000 incoming college freshmen students at a major urban university for the past few years. It has used by several tens-of-thousands of students. My hometown newspaper has a circulation of over 70,000 and the advertisment for the locally owned Super-Jiffy-Quick Tire Shop that runs the same "$10.50 off the next tire rotation" coupon every week also doesn't meet notability.
Secondly, the citation in "Language Learning Games and Activities" vol. 3(?)[2] is a self citation. The book hasn't even been cataloged by a single library in OCLC. How many places use it outside of Hess? How many copies has the book sold? How many were outside of a Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) suggests that we could always add to something like the main webcomics or the Hess page as a trivia item: "Note that if a professor [i.e. educator] is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, or event, it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." Perhaps this is the route that we should take with the information presented here.
An IMBD reference to an appearance on a cable-access style show also doesn't connotate notability. We just recently deleted one for a similar-style show in Alaska called Stupid and contagious.
Could I get the rational for using pseudonyms in the article? It makes this article read like forumcruft. --Kunzite 21:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use an alias instead of my real name from personal preference. And I did not intend for the IMDB link to be proof of notability; I put it in there simply as a "fun fact." It's why I did not bring it to the AfD discussion. And see above for my contrasting of marketing vs. education in terms of notability. Xuanwu 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"marketing is very short term in its scope and effect, while a school curriculum has a much more lasting impact on those who experience it." Personal philosphy on the value of (one?) education assignment is still not a reason to establish notability for an encyclopedia article. (As per my comparison to library instruction handouts.) --Kunzite 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I initially closed it, but then Dragonfiend raised a concern about whether verifiability had been properly addressed. I felt that it had not, so I relisted it. There is an open discussion at WP:DRV about whether my decision to relist was correct - but, for now, the discussion is relisted and any new comments are welcome. Cheers TigerShark 23:05, 25 June 2006 (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.
More