Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komikoo


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Komikoo

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable magazine. Just began publishing in 2008. No reliable sources provided, none found beyond blogs and forum posts. No bias against recreation once magazine is more established and better covered in reliable sources.  TN ‑  X   - Man  20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notable sources found. Scapler (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. The only source is a blog. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs aren't neccesarily bad sources (blogs by known experts or journalists are perfectly acceptable sources). You should've mentioned the blog isn't independent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable magazine. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am concerned about systemic bias here - normal source searching is not going to be adequate for a Malaysian comics magazine. The sources are all in Malay. I can't read them. I'd like to see us be cautious here, contact the article's creator, and get a better sense of what is going on here before we go deleting willy nilly. Certainly the mentions of the artists who have had work appear in the comic is significant - the three mentioned are significant illustrators with high profile work. A magazine that has published all three seems certain to pass WP:N. I need to see more significant evidence that this has been looked into by someone who, at the very least, knows Malay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand your concern. I do not speak Malay, however I did not find anything that resembled a reliable source. I also checked the Malay wikipedia and did not find anything there either. I think this may indeed be a notable subject in the future, but as of right now, I don't think it is. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching about, though, I'm finding that artists who have published in the magazine have extremely significant resumes. Aadi Salman, in particular, has made the jump to US comics publishing, working on the graphic novel version of Silent Hill, which suggests that he's highly notable in his homeland. Certainly a US comics magazine published for several months and with comics from high-profile creators would not be deleted. Thus I am hard-pressed to justify the deletion of a similar magazine from a foreign country. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - But do we have any notable references saying he did publish in this magazine, or are we just trusting the article? The article's claims to notability do not make it notable. Remember, WP:NOTABILITY Scapler (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Salman confirms it in his blog: . Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good start. As I mentioned in the nomination, I have no problem supporting this article, but I haven't found any reliable sources that cover the subject. Please don't think that this is a case of IDONTKNOWIT, but I can't find anything! I'd be happy to look if someone could point me in the right direction.  TN ‑  X   - Man  23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the right direction is a primer on Malay and a plane ticket to Kuala Lumpur - which is to say, we're dealing with an article that surely has sources, but those sources are surely Malaysian-language and regional sources. We're good at finding such sources in English. Malaysian? Harder. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - US-centric systemic bias is not a deletion reason. Can we get some Malaysians knowledgeable about comics on hand? - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even on the Malay language Google, I was unable to find much beyond blog entries. If anyone can with it though, have at it. Scapler (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I have asked User:CHJL, who claims a professional level of Malay to help us with finding reliable sources, so we will see what he does. Scapler (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also note, I am not 100% convinced that there is any reason to think that the Malaysian comics scene has a huge online presence. We're talking about a country with 18% of households online. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think another issue that is pertinent here is verifiability. If we cannot find any sources, online or otherwise, then I don't believe WP:V is met. Of course, CHJL may be able to provide us with the relevant information.  TN ‑  X   - Man  12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Komikoo blog does us fine from a verifiability perspective I should think. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 20 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.