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 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tokyo[edit]

Black Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article that's ostensibly about a website, though half of it is about the website's proprietor. They're much the same thing, really, as the website is a blog. A Japanese cellphone company had a stupid advertising campaign, which this blogger roundly condemned, and on which he was quoted in passing, and, er, that's about it. "[The proprietor's] blog posts have been mentioned on CNN, CNN Political Blog, France 24, The Guardian.[1], The Huffington Post,[2] The Japan Times[3] and others"; but yes, they've been mentioned, or even briefly quoted, but it seems never discussed. This article does indeed come complete with actual external links, but click them and peruse them and I think you'll agree that all of this adds up to extremely little, despite the good work of User:Blacktokyo and others. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a web directory and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS The Japan Times source adduced for the claim that the blog posts have been mentioned says no such thing. Instead, it's a humdrum letter to the paper by the blogger, and indeed a letter that doesn't mention the website or for that matter Blackness or life in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: This website has been mentioned by reputable sources, per WP:N. I see no reason to delete it. However, I do think the page needs some clean-up.Joel Lindley (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I've just had another look at WP:N, which tells us If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. / "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Addressing X directly in detail is not the same as mentioning X. Which sources address Black Tokyo in detail? -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:It satisfies WP:GNG for Reliable and Significant coverage sources, as well as WP:NTEMP.Joel Lindley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:But WP:GNG is just another name for WP:N, which I'd brought up earlier. Yes, there are reliable sources among these. And yes, I'd say that the profile on the Japan Times website (a profile of which I hadn't been aware till HeiRenXuesheng brought it up below) is an increment toward significance. The site has one write-up in the website of a newspaper of some importance (and conceivably in the newspaper itself as well, though I haven't yet investigated this). Find one or two other such profiles, or discussion or detailed description of the site, and you'd persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The notable websites that have mentioned 'BlackTokyo' already has been listed by other users, and posted in the article. As the site--'BlackTokyo' seems to be managed by one person, it's obvious the site and the owner will be mentioned hand in hand.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, yes, Black Tokyo and its proprietor have indeed been mentioned on several websites. However, with the exception of the one profile for the Japan Times website, I'm not aware of any piece that does more than mention. WP:N asks for sources that address the subject directly in detail. Where are they? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, WP:N does NOT hold that address the subject directly in detail to articles. It's one aspect that can give the articles some credence.--99.131.178.155 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I recognise that the site is probably doing a good job, but I can't see it being particular notable. A quick Google search reveals various results but a lot of them aren't anything to do with this website. Plus, only 67 other websites link to this one. The sources mentioned in the article mention the website in passing, only as it seemed useful at the time. They don't really draw any attention to the site itself. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The websites that list BlackTokyo are pretty well-known; if they are to mention BlackTokyo in it's article, it's more than 'just in passing.'Joel Lindley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-The fact that The Guardian, Huffington Post, and The Japan Times [well known media outlets] mention BlackTokyo (and it's not just in passing, as they--The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Japan Times--are referencing statements from BlackTokyo's site and site owner) shows that those outlets see BlackTokyo a little more than just a regular site. Moreover, Japan Times actually did an article on the site March 29th, 2009.-HeiRenXuesheng (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) — HeiRenXuesheng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I'm willing to be persuaded, but let's get the facts straight. First, the the site and its owner are indeed featured in the lastmentioned of these, but that's actually this: Ricardo Bilton, "Black Tokyo", "Japan Times Blogroll", 25 March 2009. This seems to be the JT website rather than the newspaper. (Time permitting, I'll look in the newspaper later.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:That doesn't make any sense. That is like saying because a site (and its owner) were referenced in an online version of the San Jose Mercury or Los Angeles Times and you didn't physically see it in the hard copy, there isn't any nobility. They're both the same thing (offline and online); and, as aforementioned various times, have quite a lot of notability.-Joel Lindley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, no it isn't. HeiRenXuesheng said that the Japan Times "did an article on the site March 29th, 2009." I pointed out that this was four days earlier (not that this matters much) and that it was on the website rather than the newspaper. I might have added that since this was in a series titled "Blogroll", it's likely that it was made especially for the website. I allowed for the possibility that it was in the newspaper too. (I still haven't looked.) I didn't mention notability, and that was because I wasn't thinking of notability. I've conceded above that this is a step toward significant coverage, and have invited links to or details of more of the same. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the other two mentions. The Guardian article says: Zurui, in a message to the Black Tokyo site, wrote: [...] Writing on Japan Probe, James disagreed: "Is this [what] sites like Black Tokyo have written? I don't think so. [...]" The Huffpo piece says: One of the first outlets to key on the ad was the website and blog Black Tokyo, which is edited by Zurui, a Black American who has lived in Japan for many years plus a longish quotation from this. There's no further description of or comment on "Black Tokyo" in either. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further: I've just noticed that the (unsourced) material about Robinson is lifted pretty directly from here. As the original isn't GFDL, strictly speaking this is a copyvio; but since the original is vaguely "Creative Commons", something could surely be worked out here. What's more worrisome is that half of an WP article that's ostensibly about a website is actually about its owner, and that the latter is based so directly on what he says about himself. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Well, that is the reason articles are edited, not deleted because there is a disagreement of how something is written.-Joel Lindley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: All the references are in place, and as has been mentioned by other users, the references are notable. I don't see why Wikipedia has to change their standards now.-Yellow Coyote (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After HeiRenXuesheng (and an IP), another very new editor. Welcome. ¶ A relevant Wikipedia standard is WP:N. This talks of the need for "Significant coverage", [meaning] that sources address the subject directly in detail. Where are these "sources" [plural]? So far only one has been proffered, a profile within a series about blogs on the Japan Times website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to keep on harping on the 'significant coverage.' There are a few guidelines (in addition to 'significant coverage') such as the aforementioned 'significant coverage'...'Reliable'...'Sources'...and 'Independent of the subject' which the article satisfies.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am relisting this discussion despite its length. I feel that there are not enough original arguments presented to judge consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:N due to its reliable sources such as [1]. Dalejenkins | 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources; notable. — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources do anything more than brief mentions of the blog, so it does not pass WP:N (which says it has to have SIGNIFICANT coverage). TJ Spyke 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As already mentioned by others above, what at first sight may appear to be impressive references sources do nothing other than mention the site in passing, and do not demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable and well-known sources which gives the site notability; too, I want to add WP:CHANCE.-Joel Lindley (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already voted futher up. Dalejenkins | 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this was a continuation of the discussion above. My mistake. Still, I want to add WP:DEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE.--Joel Lindley (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:N and WP:GNG say that articles that rely on the existence of publications for their notability should discuss the subject in a non-trivial way and that more of such sources should exist. Since the Japan Times is the only publication independent from the blog to discuss it in any significant detail, it fails the notability guidelines. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The press articles used as refs are about a racist Japanese phone ad, and only briefly quote the operator of the BlackTokyo blog. They are not significant or substantial enough to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow. Two weeks, and still on the Articles of Deletion page? I've seen pages that have questionable sources remain on the site after a week if they are nominated for deletion (the normal Wiki policy).--Joel Lindley (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.