Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futaba Channel (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. —  Aitias  // discussion 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is renomination of an article that I previously deleted. As I mentioned in my close of the previous AfD, I felt that the lack of reliable sources was incompatable with this article. My deletion has been second-guessed by myself and at least a couple of others. Based on the foregoing I have decided to restore the article, and relist it here. I also will notify the participants in the past discussion. Futaba Channel is certainly a significant part of internet culture, being a precursor to 2chan and 4chan, as well as helping spawn the OS-tans, and our own WP:Wikipe-tan. Also, a large number of articles link to this one. So, the question I put to you is are these factors (or any others that may come up) enough to justify ignoring the lack of reliable sources? Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
 * Merge or Smerge to Imageboard as opposed to outright deletion. I haven't found any reliable Japanese sources, and I could only come up with one possibly reliable English source in Kotaku. However, that's not enough to establish notability as an independent article; could be mentioned summary-style and concisely with the other chans at the Imageboard article. MuZemike 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, I am making the assumption that 2chan and Futaba Channel are pretty much one in the same, if that is correct. MuZemike 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is actually very confusing. The name '2chan' is used sometimes as a reference to Futaba Channel (because it has the url 2chan.net) and sometimes as an abbreviation of 2channel, which is a different site that inspired the creation of Futaba Channel.  Sources referring to 2chan could therefore be about either of these.  The source you linked appears to be one of the latter. JulesH (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any reason to reverse my previous opinion on this and I won't parrot what I wrote earlier. As the rather contentious AFD for Threshold shows, there is a disconnect between the types of sources Wikipedia calls for and the types of sources that are feasible for such a topic. In particular Wikipedia's discreditation of most blogs is something that needs to be revisited in 2009, as more and more blogs are becoming sources of record. But that's a topic for policy change discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge then redirect per above. Reliable sources are likely going to be difficult to find but the impact its had on the internet, even if we can't figure out where or how its documented, is undeniable. As mentioned above, there is at least one source out there, which would allow for a merge into Imageboard for now, and allow re-creation of a fuller article if more english language sources become available (or japanese sources are found). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete again same reason as already stated: 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. No one else has produced any either. Claiming they exist without providing is valueless. just because something uses its code or was inspired by does NOT make it itself notable at all.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with any of the logic you've put forth, and yet, I can't help but think that deletion is not the right answer in this instance. I think this might be the kind of situation imagined by WP:IAR, where the rules, while normally useful, are, in this instance, preventing wikipedia from being as good as it can be, and should, at least in this case, be ignored. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

*Keep Probably notable, so on balance it should be kept. DGG (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (Striking through duplicate comment, more full comment is below) Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  11:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve As I recall, my input at the first discussion was just a sarcastic swipe at the process... But I think this article is one of those examples of clearly "notable" subjects in non-English-speaking areas which are just difficult to source through the usual Wiki-techniques. The Japanese news media, for whatever reason, put articles online, and then take them down, wipe them from archives, and prevent other sites from archiving them. I have no doubt that there is sourcing out there somewhere... In print newspapers, magazine articles, whatever.... just not at the usual places (i.e., online sources) English-Wiki uses. Dekkappai (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. An important part of the history of a particular (and not small) segment of culture, which unfortunately is not documented by traditional sources.  There are sources to use, but in order to use them we must accept that the sourcing standards for this article must be different from the standards required for other articles.  While I'm not a user of this site, 4chan, or any of the other sites they have inspired, I can see from outside this group that the influence that these sites have had on a whole chunk of Internet culture is significant.  WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, as is WP:RS.  This means that there will be (rare) cases where they are wrong for a specific article.  This is one of them. JulesH (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Well as explained above, the article is an important part in Otaku culture, although I am not an expert on manga, I am of Wikipedia, and it is "incredible" that the article which was published for the first time our Wikipe-so is not listed in our encyclopedia. I apologize for not having info after his deletion, but as a fellow sysop of Wikipedia informed me in Spanish, he immediately provide me evidence to let it know to Xymmax. It should be noted who really can be a turn for the discussion of Xymmax, that there is a "campaign" for the deletion of the article, which we are avoiding they even got it on ja: wiki, ko: wiki pt: wiki etc. etc. Part of the culture of a country, part of the culture of manga, and especially part of the history of Wikipedia, it really deserves to be erased? I say no. Saloca (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This a really important topic in the otaku culture. Futaba Channel is the nest of the OS-Tan, and the birth of the Wikipe-tan mascot was realized in this site. Besides 2chan, 4chan and Wakaba are the four main imageboards for this culture. In Japanese Wikipedia exist a lot of information, only must be translated and verified this information. Futaba Channel too is the place of the Konbini-tan manga (コンビニたん), and other special characters, series and slangs were created in this site. --Taichi (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/maybe merge There is still nothing we can say reliably about this website. On the current page it talks about Netrunner. Is that a notable part of Futaba history? Who knows? On Encyclopedia Dramatica it used to be claimed (before I changed it) that Futaba is the Japanese equivalent of Stormfront where attacks on Koreans are planned and executed and its bandwidth is paid for by the uyoku dantai. Is this true, or just nonsense added by a Korean? It's impossible to say with any accuracy. What I can tell you with reasonable confidence is that the website is hosted anonymously, its remarkable bandwidth comes from unknown sources, and it has nothing to do with 2chan. At best it can be mentioned on Imageboard as an enigma of a website which inspired most of the others. Shii (tock) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if our article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is to be trusted, it is 'a website that catalogs and/or satirizes current events and themes, especially Internet-related ones. It has been described by The New York Times Magazine as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite."' So using it to show that it is impossible to get reliable information on Futaba Channel, is about as appropriate as using a... something or other to prove that it is impossible to get reliable information on... something else... or other... If you follow. I have no idea, but I suspect the Korean / Stormfront thing was satire, and that if you removed it thinking that it was Korean propaganda, you probably just didn't get the joke... I could be wrong, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reference, here are some reliable sources regarding Futaba:
 * Irish Times
 * ITmedia.co.jp
 * Gizmodo Japan
 * Futaba is extremely influential and well-known (in geek circles) in Japan, just take a look at the "memes spawned" section of the Japanese WP entry and the sheer number of Google hits. However, being 100% in Japanese it's inaccessible to non-Japanese and thus virtually unknown elsewhere, except as the site that spawned 4chan; and being an "underground" site full of questionable, often illegal content, it's also largely ignored by Japan's mainstream.  Finding geek-oriented MSM mentions is also really tough even when they exist, because "Futaba" is also a city, an electronics company, a motorcycle rally, a common name and more... Jpatokal (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as last time, and for the reasons already given by others, above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ran into the same problem trying to source a hobby spawned out of Japan that has been slowly moving to the U.S. Notability is very difficult to establish when most of the sources are in Japanese. Tag for improvements.  Maybe someone will do some translating. Kallimina (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Jpatokal and Ignore all rules. Oda Mari (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:IAR, this is clearly an important subject, and clearly the source of alot of things on the internet, like the look-and-feel of most imageboards, and clearly a large source of internet culture, like Wikipie-tan. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as last time, which others have given above. That this article was deleted on a literal interpretation of our guidelines indicates to me that the guidelines are in systematically incomplete (much the same way that WP:PORNBIO is biased against the way the East Asian AV industries work). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. See my well-researched position in the previous discussion; also per above. This article describes a highly notable subject. Noir (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep and improve, per WP:IAR. Blatantly notable, a matter of improvement rather than deletion. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If its notable enough in terms of common sense, then it's 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, and there is just enough material here to show it. I'm glad the closing admin decided to relist it. As he says, "it is certainly a significant part of internet culture." This is the proper criterion of notability,not the accident of where sources happen to be.  Thus,  as there's a rational basis for keeping the article, and most established editors here think it should be kept, that's what should be done.  DGG (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While i understand the necessity of rules and guidelines, i would like to ask does Futaba Channel matter for the japanese culture & the internet culture. If it yes and that article is deleted then i would be shamed that we are backing off when facing our own difficulties and inabilities to render properly a part of non-western culture. If we back off in every similar situation then we will deserve a truncated & biased view of non-western cultures in wikipedia.--KrebMarkt 11:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:DGG, his argument was flawless in my opinion on both AfD's - if it's notable enough in common sense, then it's notable. I'd also like to remark that my comment on the previous AfD was sarcastic in the term that I thought it was a mascarade, especially with that closing (double) vote from the nominator. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment The nominator in the original AfD was 76.66.198.171 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per Umbralcorax's comment, this is really a case fit to invoke IAR, an article not having sources due to technical reasons, and the encylopedia being worsened by not having this article, since so many other articles refer to it. It's the chain link between 2channel and 4chan (mind you, Wired says that 4chan imitates 2channel's style without mentioning Futaba, so I have added it to 2channel --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 16 January 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.