Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futaba Channel


 * 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. I freely admit that numerically the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" (even before you factor in the "TITANIUM" type modifiers). I also am given pause by the fact that many of those arguing "keep" are editors with whom I normally agree. However, I simply cannot find in any intellectually honest way find that the policy-based deletion rationales have been rebutted. There are no sources meeting any part of WP:N, and I don't see any appropriate merge targets. I will be happy to userfy, and, while any discussion on this is welcome, I will not object if someone wishes to proceed directly to DRV. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Futaba Channel

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

Non notable website. No reliable independent source prove notability per WP:INTERNET. Descíclope (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Descíclope (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or merge with 4chan per nom. Luk  suh  04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment why would you merge it to 4chan, and not 2channel? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep you've got to be kidding, this is more notable than 4chan. In fact, it's what 4chan is derived from, and has more articles in the press (provided you can read Japanese). Alexa rank is over 10,000 (4102) 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Read WP:IS and WP:RS. No independent reliable source was presented yet. Alexa is a fallacy (see also WP:GHITS). Descíclope (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not neccesarily. A high Alexa rank proves something is popular. That doesn't prove notability immediately, but does contribute to the notability of the subject if combined with other things. - Mgm|(talk) 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If an article is just lacking sources, then tag it with unreferenced or refimprove. AfD is not for discussing improving an article which is notable, but may lack the reliable sources to support it. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone did that, the article would most likely be sitting around forever without sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very surprised to see this on AfD. Futaba is a highly popular Japanese forum that has had a tremendous influence on other imageboard-based websites. 4chan's system (Yotsuba), as well as Futallaby, are derived from Futaba's board software. Futaba also spawned the quite notable OS-tans, off the top of my head. The article might need some quality sources, but that's not what AfD is for. Luinfana (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is for articles that may not be notable, there is nothing in the article that shows how it is notable per WP:WEB. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Titanium Strength Keep as per everyone else. I'm utterly gobsmacked to see this here. An increasingly common attempt to AfD something that could easily be improved. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop complaining and try to improve it then if you think it will be so easy? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, popularity does not meet WP:WEB. There is no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources, and what other sites may be using its software is irrelevant. This site fails all WP:N criteria, and all WP:WEB criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", it has not won any "well-known and independent award[s] from either a publication or organization" nor is its content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." It has not been demonstrated to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I can't even find a SINGLE reliable source that discusses this site, and the one source in the article is of questionable reliability. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability of this website among fans is undoubtable, but I searched extensively for a news or scholarly reference and could find none. We simply can't have an article without any sources! What could we possibly put in such an article? Shii (tock) 12:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Being a popular site does not show notability per WP:WEB. There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The links in the article do not show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable Japanese website that spawned many clones, particularly 4chan. Take a look at the Japanese version of the article; there's plenty of potential here for content. English language notable sources may be difficult to find, but that doesn't make the website non-notable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Japanese article is mostly an unsourced list of memes. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The easiest way to demonstrate Futaba Channel's notability here is to link it to 4chan. 4chan itself is derived from Futaba Channel (2chan), and that claim can be sourced from the Wall Street Journal article about 4chan. I'm sure many other news article about the founding of 4chan will mention 2chan by name. _dk (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Searching for "2chan" on Google News returned this list, and the first one looks promising (if it doesn't actually talk about 2channel instead). Unfortunately I can't access it, but at least we can show that sources do exist. _dk (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That article is clearly referencing 2ch, not Futaba. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Notability is not inherited from the notability of 4chan. I came up with a blank in a Google search, Gnews search, and a translation of the abovementioned jp.wikipedia article for sources. It needs to establish notability (web content) independent from the other chans out there. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure how you came up with a blank Google search - I get over 7,000 hits for the exact search term. Granted, not many of the results are notable, but it's going to be quite difficult to find reliable English-language sources for this topic. Almost every page I read, even if it only mentions Futaba in passing, calls the site "one of the most popular imageboards in Japan" or gives similar appellations (see 1, 2, etc). The subject is undoubtedly too popular to warrant deletion; I'm sure Japanese press has been generated, and given some time, links and references can be added to the article. Luinfana (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was not coming up with anything from reliable sources providing any significant coverage. I got abovt 7K ghits also, but remember that google hits is not a sole indicator of notability, and neither does a level of "presumed popularity" equate to notability here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How are you getting only 7K hits? A search for "2chan" gets me >819k hits,  and Japanese-only searches for "双葉　ちゃん" and "ふたば　ちゃん" have 500k and 3.3 million hits respectively (not all about the board, but the vast majority seem to be). Jpatokal (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB, despite currently lacking sources, as a machine translation of the ja.wiki article can readily verify. Assertions that cleanup tags do not work are fallacious, and not doing homewo-- er, I mean, following WP:BEFORE is problematic. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's Wikipe-tan's birthplace. Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the cute chick, it doesn't bring anything to the table in regards to this article. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I strongly recommend that those who promote the deletion of this article based on our own home-spun, OR-created definition of "notability" next nominate Lee Harvey Oswald for deletion based on WP:ONEEVENT. I mean seriously, I suppose there might be some sourcing on this person in the American language (although I just searched through sources in Tlingit and found nothing on him which passes WP:V), but I challenge those who claim Oswald is notable to stop whining and prove that he did two things which pass notability criteria. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I lol'd. Luinfana (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide a single source for this article anytime. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Deletion discussions are about notability. According to WP:INTERNET, I could simply use db-web. If no independent reliable source is presented, the article should be deleted. Even ja-wiki article has an "original research template" (Original research) on it and the article itself does not present any independent reliable source (even in Japanese). Independent reliable sources are crucial on deletion discussions. Descíclope (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   —Descíclope (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:WEB handily, but needs more sourcing. However I have to object to one of the delete votes that appears to be based upon the lack of "scholarly" sources. That's not a criteria for keeping articles in Wikipedia, otherwise 99% of them would have to go. I know some people would like that, but that not what Wiki is all about. 23skidoo (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not pass WP:WEB because it does not have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I'd be happy to accept Japanese sources, but the ones I could find were not independent. Can anyone who knows about the subject cite newspaper, magazines or even a reliable independent website? - Mgm|(talk) 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment as it's the developer of the popular Futaba imageboard software, it's not just a website... 76.66.195.159 (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This site was the mother of all 'chans and was enormously influential to internet culture. Yes, it definitely needs some sources and possibly a rewrite, but it's definitely notable.  Graymornings (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bah, I just spent about two hours digging through machine-translated pages from google.co.jp and news.google.co.jp. Literally nothing. I'm thoroughly convinced we're not going to find "reliable, third-party, published sources" for this topic as of now - but the article has to stay. It's far too popular to be non-notable; perhaps the sources policy can merely be overlooked, with the hope that supporting references will appear in the future? To quote from WP:NOTCLEANUP: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia." With that in mind, it's clear that there's no benefit to be had from deletion here. I'll reiterate my strong keep. Luinfana (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Before ignoring WP:RS, WP:WEB, see other discussions: Articles for deletion/United World Chart, Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann, Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed, Articles for deletion/Tino Georgiou. I'm sure there are many other examples of deletion discussions based on WP:RS and WP:IS. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." (Not a ballot). See also: What is deletion for?. If you wanna keep, you have to find reliable, third-party, published sources. Otherwise, the article must be deleted. Descíclope (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment did you change your username or something? You're quoting alot of essays and things for a new user with a handful of edits. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's pretty strange to quote pretty unknown articles discussion, when the Futaba Channel has such wide-spread knowledgibility and "inheritors". Just had to say how ridiculously funny it seems to me that this AFD might actually result in a delete.
 * Inb4 troll'd, not in the mood to argue with obvious interested persons. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep - Very, very surprised to see this at AfD, and it would seem I am not the only one. Massive influence on other imageboards that are notable, basically the starter of a genre (or even perhaps internet memetics), if you like. &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And you're voting delete because...? _dk (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm an idiot. &mdash; neuro(talk) 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't find much RS discussion in English except "4chan [...]is based on the Japanese Futaba channel, itself an offshoot of the enormously popular Japanese 2chan site". . Then there's ""japanese contemporary literature and moe"  which discusses what happens "On the Internet, in particular "2 channel" and "Channel Futaba" anonymous bulletin board sites..." (google translate the paragraph including "双葉ちゃんねる" ). It's not specificly devoted to futaba channel so if we assume there is nothing else out there, it should probably be merged. Juzhong (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't you just hate AfD's where the nominator does everything possible to prevent nay votes? Why not just let the people voice their opinion, instead of commenting on Keep votes and placing tags when there's no proof of ballot stuffing. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you're going to create an English Wikipedia account just for the sake of AfDing a single article, then please sign up for Japanese WP and AfD the Futaba channel article there as well. Otherwise, this entire exercise is not especially productive. If one language's version is non-notable, than the other is as well - the Japanese article does not seem to include any external citations. Defixio (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Futaba is the archetypal image message board and so popular in Japan that news articles don't even need to give the address or full name, because everybody knows it. Poking about on Yahoo News Japan, this article describes another site as "an image message board like Futaba" (「ふたば」のような画像掲示版), and this one describes 4Chan as "inspired by Futaba and 2ch" (ふたばと2chにインスパイアされた). Jpatokal (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think would be an excellent reference for showing notability. If something A is being used a reference to describe what something B is like (without explaining what something A is), that in and of itself shows notability because the author of the article is expecting everyone reading the article to know exactly what they mean. Have any more refs like that? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. Descíclope (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not an inheritance -- that's indicating that the comparative is so well-known that it doesn't need defining for the audience. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's exactly like WP:BIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see  Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles." Descíclope (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, those references aren't claiming a relationship -- they're making comparisons. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment According to WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". The sources are still trivial (just mention once the Futaba Channel), they are not about Futaba Channel itself. Descíclope (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still don't think this is an absolute requirement. For example, have a look at Engadget (no independent sources), or The Register (one independent source, which fails WP:WEB's requirements according to your reasoning), both of which are highly notable websites which get at least thousands of hits per day - those two just came to mind first; I'm sure there are others. They remain on Wikipedia regardless, because they have merit established by consensus that surpasses the "published works" guideline (if only for some undetermined amount of time). To quote from WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." I feel that removing this article would damage Wikipedia to a significant degree simply because of the well-established notability of the subject material (see many, many comments and links above) - lack of reliable sources notwithstanding. That said, in my opinion the articles mentioned in the above comment (1, 2) may not be trivial sources. Although they only mention Futaba in passing, it's the manner in which the site is described and the context (the site's understood importance) that truly matters. Again - the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule, and deleting this article has no conceivable benefit for the encyclopedia at large. Luinfana (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, however, you can not say that either of those remain because they has merit or because some consensus says that they "surpass" the guidelines. Neither of those have ever, in fact, been challenged in an AfD. Both of the sources above are extremely trivial mentions that add no value to Futaba's article nor any notability, at all. It seems more people are saying keep because they like the site than because of any real demonstrable notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the fact that they've never been in AfD actually support my previous assertion? I assume those articles themselves are heavily-trafficked, and if there was significant concern about their lack of sources, wouldn't you expect to see them in AfD? My support of this article is not based at all on personal bias - to claim that I might simply "like the site" is absurd - I can't even read more than a few sentences of Japanese (and hardly any kanji), and what's more, non-Japanese IP addresses are barred from posting there. I claimed that the site is notable based only on (1) its well-established (but not well-documented) popularity in Japan, and (2) from its tremendous influence on other imageboard-type sites. The discussion about the sources was not at all the main thrust of my argument; I was merely trying to show the limits of what we are likely to find on machine-translated, mostly-"trivial" Japanese pages - i.e. an indirect or understood reference to the site's popularity, influence, or notability. I did not mean that those two sources alone could merely be added to the links section of the article and everyone could go about their business. I hope that makes sense... Luinfana (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all (and, in fact, looking at their stats, neither is heavily trafficked at all and until I just did it, the Register hadn't even been assessed for its project). There is no assertion for their being heavily trafficked, and the casual browse would not bother with something like that. There is no actual verifiable information to back up any of the claimed notability of this site at all. Tge claim that it has "well-established popularity" is irrelevant without significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claim that it has had "tremendous influence" also requires actual, SIGNIFICANT coverage to claim such a thing, not just vague mentions that other sites used its design. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So I was wrong about those particular articles - as I said before, I'm sure there are better examples and those were mostly random choices. To gauge Futaba's raw popularity, you can simply look at the Alexa ranking (4102 makes it very significant). Again, I understand that this does not establish notability, only popularity - but this should be clear evidence of the latter. As for the site's influence on similar projects, we can again use empirical evidence. Have a look at the source code of Futallaby (copies code directly from Futaba's script) or Wakaba, which in turn copies Futallaby code, and whose creation was originally inspired by Futaba. Also notable is 4chan's Yotsuba, which is unfortunately closed-source, but is derived directly from Futallaby and Futaba. These are not "coverage" nor "independent sources," but they aren't vague generalizations, either - they're verifiable evidence of both popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Empirical evidence = WP:OR = not here. and frankly, whether they all use the same code is completely irrelevant. That might make the code notable, but not the site. Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. Lots of sites share the same code. That's what quite a few web developers do, write code, then release it for others to use. Some are notable, some are not. The code any of them use is completely irrelevant to that (well, unless it causes them to get majorly hacked and they screw up people's personal history). Again, whether or not 4chan uses the same code is also irrelevant and has no bearing on whether Futaba itself is notable. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I need to state this again, for clarity: I do not claim that anything I wrote above establishes Futaba's notability. I only addressed two concepts you brought up in your previous comment: popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (small outdent) Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. --- that's not really quite the right way of looking at it. Rather, it's MediaWiki that's notable and on the site, not all the offshoots (some of which ARE notable). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Collectonian. See a similar case: Articles for deletion/United World Chart and United World Chart Deletion Review. Descíclope (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * United World Chart was deleted because no one provided a convincing (or even independent or original) rationale for its preservation. Our situation is quite different - there are a range of arguments and opinions represented here. Luinfana (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If its notable enough in terms of common sense, then its notable. (I do not think we even need to invoke IAR, because WP:N is just a gudeline, and therefore inherently flexible. Additionally, the nature of what counts as RSs depends on the subject. DGG (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I've been trying to say all along, but WP:RS and WP:WEB keep getting thrown in my face. I understand the importance of those guidelines - but we have to be practical here. Luinfana (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability still has not been demonstrated despite claims of popularity amongst its fans. Probably even satisfies speedy deletion criteria. --DAJF (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would this qualify for speedy? Luinfana (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not seeing even assertion of notability - unless you count the "It is considered one of Japan's most popular imageboards..." line, which I have tagged as requiring a citation for verification. --DAJF (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly do count that sentence, as well as several others. The site is described as being set up as "a refuge for 2channel users when 2channel was in danger of shutting down." Also these sentences claim notability: "Futaba has spawned a number of strange visual gags and characters; the OS-tans would be one such meme that has spread to Western Internet culture. Some of the characters that appear on Futaba Channel have entered the real world in the form of various real-life goods, such as figures, dolls or images printed on pillows." Note that the criteria is distinct from questions of reliability and verifiability (which I agree we have not adequately established yet), but the presence of those sentences is the article's claim of subject importance and thus it's not eligible for speedy. Luinfana (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet any notability criteria, neither WP:N nor WP:WEB. Descíclope (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Striking duplicate opinion as nominator has already given opinion and assumed to want the article deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above poster is the nominator. How can we assume good faith when (s)he does stuff like this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2008 (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.