Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alans and Mosku


 * 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   Speedy delete a7 web, absolutely no indication that this meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. In fact, the article affirmatively stated: "Alans and Mosku is a brand new animated series so no references across the world wide web and/or internet has been made to represent Alans and Mosku's facts." NawlinWiki (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alans and Mosku

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable cartoon. No indications can be found that it has ever or will ever air. Proposed deletion denied by IP editor with the summary: "This cartoon has aired in ToonTV. It's a new digital cable channel found in a brand new converter box." ToonTV appears to be an animation version of YouTube. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No references offered at all? Shiva   (Visnu)  22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:GNG, there absolutely no sources (not even unreliable). Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep recently created article by a new editor, should have the chance to provide sources or other suitable indications for notability. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If there were any sources available, I wouldn't have nominated. Google shows 0 hits for this phrase, and even if the toon does exist on ToonTV, that is a video hosting site, much like YouTube, and doesn't grant significant notability.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If we started taking "recently created by a new editor, and waiting a week is not enough of a chance to provide sources" as sufficient reason for keeping articles, we would find a hell of a lot of non-notable articles would be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So? -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no sources supplied, none found by searching. AfD gives the author a week to produce them, if any exist. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources to be had means it fails WP:GNG. In response to CáliKewlKid, now is the chance for anyone to provide sources. If they exist (and I do not think they they do), this AfD offers plenty of time to produce them. Novaseminary (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google is not the end-all-be-all of sources in the world, last time I checked. In response to Novaseminary -- you are incorrect. How is the editor to know the reason his article has been nominated for deletion?  The deletion process is highly-complex compared to the relatively easy nature of modifying an article.  Please tell me, how is the editor of this article to know that the reason their article is being deleted is because it isn't notable... Where on the article page is this stated?  This is steamrolling, plain and simple. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So if there are sources to be had, mention them here. Whether a subject is notable is not at all dependent on the status of the article or even whether the creator participates in AfD. Editors participating on AfD can and do search for sources. (As an example at this Afd I came along and added sources to what was an unsourced, copyright violating article, and I would be surprised if the article is not kept. And it wouldn't be because I complained about steamrolling, but becuase I thought there might be sources and I found them and mentioned them on the AfD. And for good measure I added them to the article. And the article will be saved despite the article creator continuing to violate policy by adding copied material).
 * And nothing stops inexperienced editors from learning why an article has been nominated. At the very top of the article is a link to this very discussion, which per Afd policy must state the reason for deletion or the nomination will surely fail. And there is a link to WP:AFD which tells editors how to participate in these discussion and a link to the deletion policy. (“Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.”) If you have a problem with the AfD process, choosing a handful of AfDs to make arguments that do not follow AfD protocol is not the way to get the Afd process changed (WP:POINT). If you really think the articles are notable, explaining why is not difficult and your view might carry the day. If you think non-notable articles should remain on WP, then I suspect you are tilting at windmills (note I wrote "non-notable", not "terrible"; all of us !voting delete would vote keep if we thought the subject was notable, even if the article were terrible). Novaseminary (talk)
 * Comment - Your assertion that it is not dependent on the status of the article is an oversimplification as evidenced by users who base their opinion to delete on the idea that there are "no sources." That is not the same as lacking notability (Articles not satisfying notability), how can one know this solely on cursory searches of the Internet (Google Test)?  The fact that the article was immediately nominated for deletion shows an assumption of bad faith in the creator (Assume good faith) who is a newbie. A nomination for deletion is not providing notice on how the article may be improved but rather discouraging the new editor (Do not bite the newcomers). The proper course of action would have been to tag the article for notability (Before Nominating for Deletion #5) and give the creator (or another editor) time to provide evidence of notability, prior to the nomination for deletion.  There is obvious potential for improvement in this newly created article which makes it a bad candidate (Before Nomination for Deletion #10)
 * So, I baffled as to why you disregard my opposition to deletion by claiming I'm against the policies when I fully support the policies. I simply disagree with those who would ignore them.  Maybe I misunderstand them, in which case I have no doubt I'll be prodded in the right direction.
 * In short this article has unclear notability because a good faith effort (which would include a notability tag and asking the editor) to establish notability has not been attempted and deletion was the first resort not the last per "...articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." (Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines) -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Google Test text specifically reads:
 * Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet.
 * This topic is not so "highly specialized" that it would evade a Google search. Notable (and many barely notable) animations get hits on Google because of the vast number of fan sites dedicated to such things.  The fact that this title gets 0 hits means that not even the fan sites have picked up on it yet.  That indicates a high likelihood that valid sources are not going to be found.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a strong argument against notability and an argument that an editor of a newly created article can appreciate. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to CáliKewlKid, many times editors simply stating "no sources" mean, not only that the article does not have them, but that they cannot find them either. I would note that several editors in this discussion do appear to have made a good faith effort to find sources. I have (including news searches and book searches). I found none. If I thought the article could be improved now so that the article makes clear that the subject meets WP:N, I would vote keep. Period. And then I would worry about helping source it or pointing editors in the right direction. I disagree that there is potential for improvement. I looked myself. That is why I voted delete. When notability is challenged the debate is about the subject; other types of deletion (for copyright, advertising, etc. might depend on the state of the article to some extent, but notability is focused on the notability of the subject) And if there are sources out there that I (or it would appear, you) have not found, there is plenty of time for anyone interested to participate here. The creator and editors do hve time to provide evidence of notability. That is why we are here. A nomination for deletion is not an instant deletion with no warning. And remember, an article is only deleted if there is consensus to delete. No consensus means it stays.
 * Giving new editors more time to waste more of their time on an article that will be deleted in a month or whatever arbitrary period your think we should wait because the subject does not meet any notability criteria is more cruel that just determining the notability and saving them the wasted effort. And nominating for deletion is not the same as not assuming good faith (though you assuming those of us who have !voted delete have not sought to determine independently whether a subject meets WP:N—though we say we have— is pretty close to it). Many times new editors mean well, but inadvertently violate policy. We don't ignore it, we just don't attribute it to bad motives. In an edit summary, the creator noted "This cartoon is a new series. It takes time for links to be created". That is all but an admissin that there is no significant coverage yet. Until there is, the cartoon fails WP:GNG. Once there is (to oversimply a bit), the cartoon will meet WP:GNG and then we can worry about the shape of the article.
 * Novaseminary (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe I understand what you are saying but I'll recap just to be sure: You believe the article cannot be improved to meet the criteria of notability based on your search for sources and looking at the article and that such efforts alone are sufficiently in-depth enough to be good faith. The debate is on the notability of the subject and that you believe 7 days is sufficient time for an editor to put forth evidence of notability. You believe it is cruel to allow editors more time to source or establish notability and that an immediate nomination for deletion is not an assumption of bad faith.
 * Now based on that there is one thing missing: Looking at the article and searching for sources leaves out the most obvious choice for establishing notability: tagging the article or asking the creator of the article before the article is nominated for deletion.
 * I'm not in a position to debate the merit of the subject at hand because I am not familiar with cartoons or animation. I am in a position to see a sacrifice of thoughtful consideration and effort for expediency by filing a nomination for deletion and then asking for notability and then establishing a majority consensus based on less than compelling statements, hence the reference to steamrolling. (though WikiDan's last statement is more compelling than the rest, it's also a recent addition)
 * Giving an editor more time is not a waste (and I'm not sure how 7 days is any less arbitrary than a month) it is acknowledging that initial efforts may be imperfect. How is, before anything else, immediately proposing an article be deleted assuming that the creator's effort is in good faith? Wouldn't a non-bite assumption of good faith on a article of unclear notability be to tag the page and ask the new editor prior to nominating it for deletion?
 * If the idea is that you should be bold, anyone can edit and you do not need to be perfect then "deletion as a last resort" (especially in instances of novice editors and new articles) should be the norm (and it is, as stated in the deletion and notability policies). This is clearly a case of deletion as a first resort (literally 5 minutes after being created). -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Consensus has determined that 7 days is right for most AfDs (subject to relisting). We don't make exceptions to that for articles created by or edited by inexperienced (or experienced) editors. If you think AfD's where the nomination relates to notability should go on longer, this is not the place to argue that. Try Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion or the WP:PUMP. And deletion is not permanent. If RSs do materialize if the cartoon makes it big, the article can always be recreated with citations to those sources. And the article was not deleted five minutes after creation. It was nominated. That put a big notice on the article asking the creator and anyone else interested to come here to discuss it. WP:NEWARTICLE. Novaseminary (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.