Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoOlRulez


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FoOlRulez

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website or "website crew". No relibable sources can be found to verify any claims of notability. Speedy declined. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The points I made are under Talk:FoOlRulez. If this doesn't happen to be the criteria, feel free to remove. I thought dimensions under a certain niche makes the difference, but then again, I'm not a Wiki pro. Woxxap (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Farix (Talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable website that engages in copyright violations in the form of scanlations. No coverage by reliable third-party sources and I seriously doubt there will ever be. A number of references are to websites that also violate WP:COPYLINK and currently being petitioned for inclusion on WP:BLACKLIST. Coincidentally, WP:MANGA recently had a discussion about articles on fansub and scanlation groups. I should also note that there is a potential conflict of interest since the article's creator is connected with the website, thus rending the article as a self-promotion. In fact, the website's administrator uses the nim "Woxxy", which is very similar to . --Farix (Talk) 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just a general point I want to make, doesn't imply this post shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxxap (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not Woxxy but I am an early community member, as I know the history, though not involved in the two teams of the group. I can't be called unbiased because I am inside the website, but it's pretty unlikely to make such article without having an indeep insight. I decided to make an article just because the size of the group's public would make it legit, or at least I think so. In a few days the article would be anyway touched by the public remastering what I wrote. If it was to try getting traffic from wiki, one link in a related subject page would drive the most visitors, while a page like this can only give objective information about the group that can't be gathered in a glimpse.


 * As said in that article for Dattebayo (which is like the anime version of FoOlRulez), this is saying that information about groups on the "edge of law" aren't worth mentioning. I agree with that the articles shouldn't lead to material with copyright issues, but on the long run this is ignoring a fair slice of cake of what is the internet nowdays. If there can't be the link, then at least name the group without linking should be there (even though that would give a lack of references too).
 * I am calling it "edge of law" because I know that there isn't a law precedent on scanlations/fansub because after a "Cease and Desist" letter any group dropped the manga from the company who asked them, without any trial. Also, scanlators never translate licensed mangas. Even though this can fall under the name of illegality, there's still the fact that companies are using this "scanlation community" in order to promote their own mangas, that else would never break in the western market. More precisely, groups like "Viz" or "TokyoPop" (official scanlators) usually license mangas that are known to have a lot of readers from the unoffical scanlations. The product can't even be called pirated because it's distributing content that didn't exist previously or that anyway wouldn't be available for certain people (those who can't read Japanese). If you need further explanation I am pretty knowledgeable about this subject.


 * Also to add, though it's true that the great mass of fansubbers aren't notable, there's at least half a dozen worth mentioning, as for example Dattebayo's public is not just hundred of thousands like the one from FoOlRulez, but millions, making it kind of wrong to not mention it. Even though there aren't articles about it in the New York Times, the mass of people involved is enough of a reason to make an article for it in Wikipedia. Else this would be as well as stating that the truth is only written inside those trustable sources and reality doesn't count as long as it's not filtered through secondary means.


 * Lastly, websites in the anime/manga websites category are mostly to be considered as illegal as well, especially Crunchyroll, that beside being an anime streaming website, has also their own sub group. Even in the article it's written so, so it's not logic to ignore massive groups like some of the scanlators and fansubbers when Crunchyroll is there (using the product of fansubbers) that all in all works in a no different way than the one I explained two paragraphs ago, while also being commercial.


 * Sorry for the long post, I just love the subject of discussion. Woxxap (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Legality of the group aside, the guidelines of Wikipedia call for reliable verifiability through references to third party sources. If no one in the legitimate manga or Web industry is writing about this site, perhaps it is because of a desire not to give them undue notability.  Whatever the cause, since no reliable sources exist, then none of the information in the page can be considered verifiable, and the page should be deleted.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact the page was going to get moved in my User: but seems it didn't work because of the already present article stub there (one can't move it during the first account days). So let's just wait for the AfD to take effect. Woxxap (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not covered by Reliable Third Party to give a modicum of notability. Farix has already explained in details the issue with bunch of wikilinks & acronyms. --KrebMarkt 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

@Woxxap The one who failed here isn't wikipedia but rather the "vetted" experts in animanga field who out frigidity and denial mode did their very best to not cover the scanlation & fansub subjects in a non-trivial way. One of the exception was an +2 years old issue of the Comics Journal with an article on scanlation but nothing a heard off since then. --KrebMarkt 05:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Website has notability issues plus lots more problems. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (AT)
 * Delete per Farix. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (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.