Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy (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   delete. Concerns that this article meeting reliable sourcing weren't properly met in the AFD, or was rebutted. Being kept once before isn't a reason for keeping if the article doesn't meet current guidelines. Secret account 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

non-notable webcomic, the sources provided do not meet WP:RS and notability is therefore not established. This was previously deleted and has been recreated at a different location. See Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi. No traces on Google books and scholor and one trivial mention in books (3 entries same book) as part of a wide topic and the information looks like it might have been lifted from wikipedia anyway (wp) Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) These are the "references for the subject and the basic inclusion requirement is that they are reliable and substantial coverage. Shall we see what they are like shall we?
 * Speedy keep Article was already found to satisfy WP:WEB last time and it now has even more sources than the previous discussion. Dragoneer (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But the sources dont seem reliable and the approach to sourcing has tightened up in the last year. It would be much more helpful if you could address the sourcing in detail. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two of the original sources were newspapers (I've restored one that was deleted by accident). New Haven Register, for example, is that city's main paper. It was on the strength of those plus the publication by a major educational institution (Hess) that it was kept last time. Now it has an additional newspaper reference (Grand News), a reference from an anime news blog, and two presentations at national conferences (which are peer-reviewed). I think given this combination of sources, satisfaction of WP:WEB is met. Dragoneer (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. ^ "Bored this Summer? Try Webcomics!" Tech News, 2002-04-23.
 * Not entirely sure what Tech News is. Its an ancient reference and doesn't appear to be specifically about this subject. Its questionable relevance anyway as its not got a wiki article so I doubt its a RS reference.
 * 2. ^ Baird, John. Picturevoice: Health Communication Through Art." Presentation. Society for Public Health Education 60th Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA. November 6, 2009.
 * Presentations are not reliable sources. They are essentially primary sources. Was the presentation reported anywhere? that might count but the actual presentation? no.
 * 3. ^ Baird, John. "Healthy Holidays: Lessons Learned from a Community Education Event." Presentation. American Public Health Association 137th Annual Meeting. Philadephia, PA. November 11, 2009.
 * See 2.
 * 4. ^ Baird, John. "Create a Comic." In Language Learning Games and Activities Volume 3 pg 14-15, edited by Gary Bosomworth and Sheryn Williams. Taipei, Taiwan ROC: Hess Educational Organization, 2005.
 * Exactly what does this say about the article? is it a mention? is it in depth? Slightly surprised this didn't figure in the google books search.
 * 5. ^ McLoughlin, Pamela. Cartoons propel creative process. New Haven Register. Published: 2007-03-19.
 * Not clear that its substantially about this comic strip. How detailed is the mention?
 * 6. ^ "Comic Tournament in New Haven." Grand News Community Newspaper. April 2009.
 * Community paper? is that a freesheet? These are rarely accepted as solid reliable sources and again the coverage needs o0t be substantial and this article looks tangential to the subject
 * 7. ^ Tei, Andrew. (2002-07-05) Anime Expo 2002 Convention Reports. AnimeOnDVD.com.
 *  Apparently a primary source. not at all an RS 
 * 8. ^ a b Ushicon Panels - 2003
 * Ditto 7
 * 9. ^ Shepherd, Jeremy. "Otakon 2009: Manga, Literacy, and Children." http://anime.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5565
 * website? published? reliable source? looks like a fan site not a RS
 * 10. ^ Snodgrass, Emily. Happy (late) Thanksgiving ^^;;
 * primary source and self-referantial
 * So, reviewing all these references in detail, none of them obviously meet RS and there are outstanding questions on even the better looking ones. If this were a noteable webcomic there would be a sunstantial news, scholor and book presence but what we have is nothing really realiable or substantial. This is why the notability is in doubt and I invite you to spend some time clarifying these sources and demonstrating notability. Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Tech News newspaper article is a list of 4 in-depth webcomic reviews, of which this webcomic is one, so it meets the "significant coverage" criterion. Grand News is not given away for free as you suggested and has a formal editorial board; it's the third/fourth major paper of that city. I'm not sure of your comments on the presentations. Since they are peer reviewed ahead of time for content before being allowed to be presented, they both have the same standing as a journal article in terms of academic notability. Please clarify your distinction. Dragoneer (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Advanced Media Network is not a one-person blog, but an online media news site with staff, editorial board, etc. They've qualified for press credentials at multiple major anime conventions (including Otakon), giving them further standing. Dragoneer (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikinews has also got itself accredited to report stuff but still isn't a reliable source and what kind of fact checking does it undertake? I looked at the staff and they all looked like amateurs. Tech news seems to have no online presence. Does it still exist. can you point to the article online or provide further details of Tech news' back ground. Unusual for a technology paper to have no online presence is it not? Spartaz Humbug! 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AMN is a corporation with paid staff, so they qualify as professionals. As for Tech News, I'm currently digging into where their website and archives are or if they're still in business. Fortunately, current business status has no impact on reliability of a news source when it was in print. Dragoneer (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I've done what I can to improve the sourcing, but unfortunately the sources are still totally inadequate for an encyclopedia article as they really do not deal with this topic. The very best sources are at best passing mentions in small local newspapers covering small local library events and not this topic. They lack what our Notability calls "Significant coverage," so we're left with just a lot of original research. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The newspaper and presentation sources, at least, appear to satisfy WP:RS. As to notability, to quote WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  The newspaper sources, as they satisfy WP:RS and are independent of the subject (the presentations were by someone connected to the comic, and so are arguably not independent), appear to establish this (it is a judgment call on what is "significant", but the substantial majority of Web comics have received no news media coverage specific to the comic, so anything that's more than a mention would seem to qualify in this case).  This appears to counter the argument for deletion. Winged Cat (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * please see my detailed assessment of the references in this article. being mentioned in a newspaper does not = notability. having substantial coverage does and the coverage has not been shown to be reliable. Spartaz Humbug! 17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Read Wikipedia's Policy,particularly that on Deletion Review. Either to Deletion or Undeletion, renominations should not be given without good cause or new arguments. This is still the same basic arguments as before, notability of sources. Give it a rest guys...Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Spartaz & Starblueheather, the sources don't need to provide "substantial" coverage. Any subject that is notable through some other criterion can be referenced using sources with "minor" coverage as long as the important facts are verified. For example: if all but one source on Niels Bohr were to disappear this instant, he would still qualify for an article if the one remaining article mentions his Nobel Prize. Please judge the sources on their actual content rather then their "substantial-ness". - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because that seems to have been the reason to keep in the last AfD (i.e. coverage in two papers plus the Hess publication). If that's still the case, then it seems you're calling into question Spartaz's assertion that the sourcing rules have changed since the last AfD. I think it would be a good idea for Spartaz to provide some explanation on what he meant by "the approach to sourcing has tightened up." Especially since WP:WEB, the notability criteria at work here, has not been significantly altered since the last AfD. Dragoneer (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note The content of the original article Okashina Okashi has been temporarily userfied per request at DRV can currently be found at User:Starblueheather/Okashina Okashi. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete with the same reasoning as Starblueheather: the given sources are very weak and do not establish the notability of the subject. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources seem to be reliable. I'm personally fine, for non-contested material, with taking free newspapers and the like if they aren't self-published. Depth of coverage looks a bit unclear, but not having on-line version of the articles isn't a good reason to delete. Those with access to the articles claim coverage is fine (and yes, being one of 4 topics reviewed in an article can be quite enough).  I'm good. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it was kept in 2008. I think the deletion in 2006 is a fairly minor point given that... Hobit (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have information on all of the sources but one, the "Tech News" article. None of the others provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which ones do you believe meet WP:GNG and why? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:43, 16 December 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.