Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (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   no consensus. After discounting all the SPAs and invalid votes this comes down to two keeps and three deletes. BJ Talk 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

This was considered a few months ago and closed as "no consensus." I think a new debate is needed. Additional sources have not emerged since then, and the ones cited do little to establish real notability, and don't really verify the information in the article. Since the two articles already linked there seems to be little or no commentary about this person from reliable sources in either Japanese or English. Chick Bowen 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the general notability guideline, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, unless more sources to demonstrate notability are found. One appearance on a TV show and two interviews in Japanese Weekly Playboy do not make a sufficient notability case under WP:BIO. Almost nothing in GoogleNews: possibly 1 hit (in Vietnamese) in recent news and nothing before that. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, This article has far as I have read, has always been stubby due to a lackingness of reliable sources WP:RS or the inclusion of unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR. I suggest this article should receive nothing short of a STRONG DELETE has it carries little if not no point of being informative or anything that warrants further keeping as an article of wikipedia WP:NOT. Campus101 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ten Pound Hammer said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  weak keep: I have attempted time and again to find solid facts on her and there is absolutely nothing. I tried my hardest to improve this article but there is no helping it. The original content was heavily biased and any attempts at fixing it have been met with contempt and revert edit wars in an attempt to restore it back to its original state. In short, this article is not worth the effort of keeping as it is of low quality, does not meet wikipedian standards, and just causes trouble. I agree with Campus101 about the article not adhering to the unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR rules and regulations.Yariau neko (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: After scouring google I have found this article, which has brightened my hopes for the success of this article. The article, if kept, will need to be heavily monitored and rewritten, but it looks like it is staring to have a bit of hope. Thus I am changing my vote from strong delete to weak keep.Yariau neko (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Magibon is one of the most popular people on Youtube. Her subscribers are constantly growing. She is mentioned in Newspapers around the world. Some people have tried to make it impossible to write this article. Double standards were applied on this article. It has the largest discussion page of all Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. Most discussions were simply objections who came from people who made no constructive contributions but tried to to interrupt the work on this article. The article was vandalized several times. Magibon is as notable as any of the Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. I have checked the other articles about Youtubers, if Magibons article is deleted, 95% of the other Youtubers could be removed from Wikipedia for the same sleazy reasons. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, therefore people naturally expect to find informations about internet celebrities that everyone is talking about. If this article will be deleted, it would be a proof that Wikipedia is not neutral and fair.--Firithfenion (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give some specific examples of these "newspapers around the world"? Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Norwegian: New Trend on Youtube another one: Danish Newsreport Here is a Youtube videoclip from a Mexican Newsreport Here is Youtube videoclip about a report from a swedish journalist from the Aftonbladet TV. Magibons channel has more subscribers than the official Youtube channel of Britney Spears. Her influence is constantly growing. Compare this to most of the other Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia and you will come to the conclusion that it would be a gap to leave one of the most discussed and imitated Youtubers of all time out of Wikipedia. She is definitely an internet phenomenon. --Firithfenion (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Wikipedia Japan has the article, why Wikipedia English should not. tribaL_iLLusion (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — tribaL_iLLusion (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not really a convincing reason to keep, something from the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. English and Japanese Wikipedias are two independent wikis with their own separate rules and standards for inclusion. The subject may be notable according to the standards of the Japanese Wikipedia but not of English Wikipedia. Ultimately, what matters is whether or not a convincing case for passing one of the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, can be made. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Magibon is a celebrity. That's why the article must stay. She has appeared in other media than just youtube. That's a fact. —Preceding (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC) — Tosjjo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just stating that someone is a celebrity is not enough. It is necessary to produce verifiable references to reliable sources that convincingly demonstrate this. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Above, but, being a celeb. dosn't make you notable, nor does having youtube subscriptions,--Jakezing (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Err-r, so why exactly do you think the article deserves a "keep" then? Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This Wikipedia article about Magibon refers readers to sources of reliable information about Magibon which she herself endorses as factual. The links, and references in this Magibon article are verifiable by following said links. This article deserves to remain intact. Djk_dnb (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.137.8 (talk) Note: SineBot is correct: the preceding comment was added by  76.121.137.8 as this diff shows, even though the comment includes a signature of User:Djk_dnb. — 76.121.137.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nsk92 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What we have here is a constant raid on the Wikipedia article about Magibon by members of the infamous web site, Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is clear they have an alternative agenda to do everything in their power to defame the name of this young lady, Magibon. The facts presented in this article are verifiable and yet the members of ED will not relent. Their obsession with destroying the reputation of Magibon has nothing to do with assuring the accuracy of this article and everything to do with their agenda. Wikipedeia should not give in to the bullies of ED and their attempt to distort the rules in order to accomplish removing Magibon from this online encyclopedia. She deserves the same consideration and respect that other YouTube personalities have received from Wikipedia.--Drstulu (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Drstulu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The information and links provided in this Magibon article is verifiable. Other internet celebrities have their own article, and Wikipedia-Japan have Magibon article. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, it is normal to have articles about internet phenomenon and celebrities. --Harmonic_gear (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 UTC} — Harmonic gear (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Magibon is a phenomena. She successfully managed to gather many many people around her from all over the world. So, i think these people deserve to have an English reliable source of information about their Magi =). And, yes ... some of us know Magi and I'm sure these info is correct. it helped me so much as a foreigner (Egyptian) Magifan ^_^ --Ahmed_Naguib (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 GMT Note:Although the preceding comment has a signature of Ahmed_Naguib, the comment was in fact added by User:41.232.193.208 as this diff shows. This was the only WP edit by 41.232.193.208 to date. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Nsk92. The Norwegian and Danish newspaper articles are barely more than a paragraph. Something more substantial would be needed. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Salon.com had an extensive article about the Magibon internet meme (under the name MRirian). Salon.com is a reliable source.--Section8pidgeon (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all right, but I feel it necessary to point out that that article is about the impossibility of verifying any information about the subject. Chick Bowen 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the Salon article is probably just (barely) enough to push this over the notability line. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 25 September 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.