Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Saimoe League


 * 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,m truly sorry about this one but the nominator and those advocating for deletion are right. If the only coverage there is for something is from blogs and forums, then we can't have an article about it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

International Saimoe League

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable online poll almost entirely first party sourced Jac 16888 Talk 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing all first party sources, there are still 5 third party sources. What exactly do you require for a fan-based event to be notable? Or better yet, what do you require for an online poll to be notable? Tell us and we'll find you the sources. KholdStare88 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Has received no coverage by reliable third-party sources. The only coverage I could find are from forums, blogs, and a fan-zine called J-zine. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep How is that not reliable? For a fan-based event, the experts are the fans, authors of blogs, forums, fan-zines. Who else should these experts be, anime production companies, or perhaps, J.C. Staff? I believe blogs that cover Saimoe events regularly (not just one or two matches then done) are considered a reliable third-party source for fan-based events. KholdStare88 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs, form posts, zines, and other self-published sources are not acceptable unless they produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Please see WP:SOURCES for what is and is not considered a reliable source, and see WP:NOTE and WP:WEB for the requirements a topic must meet to be included as a stand-alone article in Wikipeida. —Farix (t &#124; c)
 * I have researched those site before making my arguments. It does make sense for most topics that blogs and zines are not acceptable third-party sources. But for this specific case, fan-based events, it does work. As you commented, "unless they are produced by an established expert." Like I posted, in this area, the fans are the experts, so fan blogs who cover the tournament regularly should be considered experts. KholdStare88 (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ORG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. "Fans are experts?" Nope, so far as notability in Wikipedia is concerned. Edison (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been asking for a while now, but who exactly would be an expert on this matter? Give me an example, and I will try to relate. Also, let's not talk about "fans." We will say regular participants with significant contribution. That would make them experts. KholdStare88 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fans are experts" is equivalent to WP:ILIKEIT and is not a basis for keeping an article. We look for independent reliable sources. Did a major newspaper such as the New York Times say it? Did a wire service such as the Associated Press say it? Was it said in a respected scholarly journal which has peer reviewed articles? Is it said in a book published by a respected publisher or some university press? Some fan having a blog or posting on Wikipedia is absolutely not the same. Sorry if you cannot see that there is a difference. Edison (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Searching Anime & Manga RS finds many third-party sites used as RS (go past the first page), also in different language as its "International" title suggests, counting French, Thai, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Note that the top two voting regions of ISML are China and Taiwan, comprising of about half of votes, so one would expect more sources in Chinese. As stated by Gwern in Anime Saimoe Tournament's deletion discussion, it is proven that Saimoe rankings in general are listed in Magazines such as Newstype. Hits for "saimoe" in that post also includes International Saimoe League, not just Anime Saimoe Tournament, so sources carry over. Compared to Anime Saimoe Tournament, which continues to try to make the tournament Japanese-only, International Saimoe League is greater in scope and participation; ISML is practically the complement of Anime Saimoe Tournament: one is for within Japan and the other is for the rest of the world. Compare ISML's scope and participation (choose a round, click Go, and click on the Globe icon to view international voting) with Anime Saimoe Tournament's participation (requires Japanese Shift_JIS). It is safe to say that Saimoe participation outside Japan has largely switched to ISML after the foreign ban in AST, noticing the vote drop from AST after its peak in 2006 (4500 votes), and ISML's vote rise to its peak in 2010 (12500 votes). These two tournaments are complements of each other, and they share the same notability, when discussing "Saimoe." KholdStare88 (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking out !Vote for double !voting. I've when through the results of the customized search results and didn't say anything from a reliable source. All that was there are some blogs, forum posts, and the website to the ISL itself. Subjects can only have articles if they received significant from reliable third-party sources. The Anime Saimoe Tournament, on the other hand, has received minor coverage from Anime News Network, the Malaysian newspaper The Star, and a few other reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So basically, because someone decided to make a few posts about AST on ANN and some random reporter in Malaysia covered it, that's the difference between notable and not notable? So these "experts" who wrote a few articles know more about saimoe than those who cover AST/ISML on their personal blogs for years? From a logical point of view, a long time running blog of saimoe would be way more reliable than some random poster who decided to cover AST for fun. There's no reason to say someone with a name on a big anime website who posts minimal information is more reliable than experts who's been contributing and voting for a much longer time. 209.147.151.159 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that blogs cannot be a reliable source; it all depends on who wrote it. "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." - WP:SPS. Most blogs do not meet this requirement, but there are exceptions. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:21, 6 October 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.