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 freely admit that numerically the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" (even before you factor in the "TITANIUM" type modifiers). I also am given pause by the fact that many of those arguing "keep" are editors with whom I normally agree. However, I simply cannot find in any intellectually honest way find that the policy-based deletion rationales have been rebutted. There are no sources meeting any part of WP:N, and I don't see any appropriate merge targets. I will be happy to userfy, and, while any discussion on this is welcome, I will not object if someone wishes to proceed directly to DRV. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futaba Channel[edit]

Futaba Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable website. No reliable independent source prove notability per WP:INTERNET. Descíclope (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) — Descíclope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Read WP:IS and WP:RS. No independent reliable source was presented yet. Alexa is a fallacy (see also WP:GHITS). Descíclope (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not neccesarily. A high Alexa rank proves something is popular. That doesn't prove notability immediately, but does contribute to the notability of the subject if combined with other things. - Mgm|(talk) 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "2chan" on Google News returned this list, and the first one looks promising (if it doesn't actually talk about 2channel instead). Unfortunately I can't access it, but at least we can show that sources do exist. _dk (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure how you came up with a blank Google search - I get over 7,000 hits for the exact search term. Granted, not many of the results are notable, but it's going to be quite difficult to find reliable English-language sources for this topic. Almost every page I read, even if it only mentions Futaba in passing, calls the site "one of the most popular imageboards in Japan" or gives similar appellations (see 1, 2, etc). The subject is undoubtedly too popular to warrant deletion; I'm sure Japanese press has been generated, and given some time, links and references can be added to the article. Luinfana (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are you getting only 7K hits? A search for "2chan" gets me >819k hits, and Japanese-only searches for "双葉　ちゃん" and "ふたば　ちゃん" have 500k and 3.3 million hits respectively (not all about the board, but the vast majority seem to be). Jpatokal (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to the cute chick, it doesn't bring anything to the table in regards to this article. MuZemike (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lol'd. Luinfana (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to provide a single source for this article anytime. Shii (tock) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:WEB because it does not have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Descíclope (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inb4 troll'd, not in the mood to argue with obvious interested persons. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you're voting delete because...? _dk (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm an idiot. — neuro(talk) 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think would be an excellent reference for showing notability. If something A is being used a reference to describe what something B is like (without explaining what something A is), that in and of itself shows notability because the author of the article is expecting everyone reading the article to know exactly what they mean. Have any more refs like that? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Descíclope (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an inheritance -- that's indicating that the comparative is so well-known that it doesn't need defining for the audience. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's exactly like WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles." Descíclope (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those references aren't claiming a relationship -- they're making comparisons. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". The sources are still trivial (just mention once the Futaba Channel), they are not about Futaba Channel itself. Descíclope (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still don't think this is an absolute requirement. For example, have a look at Engadget (no independent sources), or The Register (one independent source, which fails WP:WEB's requirements according to your reasoning), both of which are highly notable websites which get at least thousands of hits per day - those two just came to mind first; I'm sure there are others. They remain on Wikipedia regardless, because they have merit established by consensus that surpasses the "published works" guideline (if only for some undetermined amount of time). To quote from WP:WIARM: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." I feel that removing this article would damage Wikipedia to a significant degree simply because of the well-established notability of the subject material (see many, many comments and links above) - lack of reliable sources notwithstanding. That said, in my opinion the articles mentioned in the above comment (1, 2) may not be trivial sources. Although they only mention Futaba in passing, it's the manner in which the site is described and the context (the site's understood importance) that truly matters. Again - the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule, and deleting this article has no conceivable benefit for the encyclopedia at large. Luinfana (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, however, you can not say that either of those remain because they has merit or because some consensus says that they "surpass" the guidelines. Neither of those have ever, in fact, been challenged in an AfD. Both of the sources above are extremely trivial mentions that add no value to Futaba's article nor any notability, at all. It seems more people are saying keep because they like the site than because of any real demonstrable notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the fact that they've never been in AfD actually support my previous assertion? I assume those articles themselves are heavily-trafficked, and if there was significant concern about their lack of sources, wouldn't you expect to see them in AfD? My support of this article is not based at all on personal bias - to claim that I might simply "like the site" is absurd - I can't even read more than a few sentences of Japanese (and hardly any kanji), and what's more, non-Japanese IP addresses are barred from posting there. I claimed that the site is notable based only on (1) its well-established (but not well-documented) popularity in Japan, and (2) from its tremendous influence on other imageboard-type sites. The discussion about the sources was not at all the main thrust of my argument; I was merely trying to show the limits of what we are likely to find on machine-translated, mostly-"trivial" Japanese pages - i.e. an indirect or understood reference to the site's popularity, influence, or notability. I did not mean that those two sources alone could merely be added to the links section of the article and everyone could go about their business. I hope that makes sense... Luinfana (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all (and, in fact, looking at their stats, neither is heavily trafficked at all and until I just did it, the Register hadn't even been assessed for its project). There is no assertion for their being heavily trafficked, and the casual browse would not bother with something like that. There is no actual verifiable information to back up any of the claimed notability of this site at all. Tge claim that it has "well-established popularity" is irrelevant without significant coverage in reliable sources, and the claim that it has had "tremendous influence" also requires actual, SIGNIFICANT coverage to claim such a thing, not just vague mentions that other sites used its design. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I was wrong about those particular articles - as I said before, I'm sure there are better examples and those were mostly random choices. To gauge Futaba's raw popularity, you can simply look at the Alexa ranking (4102 makes it very significant). Again, I understand that this does not establish notability, only popularity - but this should be clear evidence of the latter. As for the site's influence on similar projects, we can again use empirical evidence. Have a look at the source code of Futallaby (copies code directly from Futaba's script) or Wakaba, which in turn copies Futallaby code, and whose creation was originally inspired by Futaba. Also notable is 4chan's Yotsuba, which is unfortunately closed-source, but is derived directly from Futallaby and Futaba. These are not "coverage" nor "independent sources," but they aren't vague generalizations, either - they're verifiable evidence of both popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empirical evidence = WP:OR = not here. and frankly, whether they all use the same code is completely irrelevant. That might make the code notable, but not the site. Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. Lots of sites share the same code. That's what quite a few web developers do, write code, then release it for others to use. Some are notable, some are not. The code any of them use is completely irrelevant to that (well, unless it causes them to get majorly hacked and they screw up people's personal history). Again, whether or not 4chan uses the same code is also irrelevant and has no bearing on whether Futaba itself is notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I need to state this again, for clarity: I do not claim that anything I wrote above establishes Futaba's notability. I only addressed two concepts you brought up in your previous comment: popularity and influence. Luinfana (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(small outdent) Tons of sites use MediaWiki, but that doesn't make them all notable just because they share code. --- that's not really quite the right way of looking at it. Rather, it's MediaWiki that's notable and on the site, not all the offshoots (some of which ARE notable). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • United World Chart was deleted because no one provided a convincing (or even independent or original) rationale for its preservation. Our situation is quite different - there are a range of arguments and opinions represented here. Luinfana (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I've been trying to say all along, but WP:RS and WP:WEB keep getting thrown in my face. I understand the importance of those guidelines - but we have to be practical here. Luinfana (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would this qualify for speedy? Luinfana (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I'm not seeing even assertion of notability - unless you count the "It is considered one of Japan's most popular imageboards..." line, which I have tagged as requiring a citation for verification. --DAJF (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I certainly do count that sentence, as well as several others. The site is described as being set up as "a refuge for 2channel users when 2channel was in danger of shutting down." Also these sentences claim notability: "Futaba has spawned a number of strange visual gags and characters; the OS-tans would be one such meme that has spread to Western Internet culture. Some of the characters that appear on Futaba Channel have entered the real world in the form of various real-life goods, such as figures, dolls or images printed on pillows." Note that the criteria is distinct from questions of reliability and verifiability (which I agree we have not adequately established yet), but the presence of those sentences is the article's claim of subject importance and thus it's not eligible for speedy. Luinfana (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above poster is the nominator. How can we assume good faith when (s)he does stuff like this? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2008 (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.
More