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. Kurykh 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin Smash

[edit]

Unfortunately, this article violates almost every major Wikipedia policy there is. A Lexis-Nexis search for "Gaijin Smash" produces not a single independent publicly-verifiable source per WP:VER (in fact, there were no articles at all); the sources the WP article does provide either link back to unreliable blog entries, dubious internet sites without a clearly described editing and oversight structure, and/or sometimes the subject site itself calling into question WP:RS and (more importantly) blatant advertising issues; and finally, it contains several unverifiable assertions using weasel words that try to puff-up the importance of the subject matter, suggesting original research. My vote: delete. J Readings 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known blog. Agree that the tone is inappropriate. WP:SOFIXIT. Could probably stand to be cut down significantly. Should not be cut out. --- tqbf 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Abstain - am familiar with the blog, but have no good response to the arguments below. --- tqbf 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Asahi Shimbun is a reliable source. Powers ^T 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We need more objective evidence than one article that briefly mentions the subject. Where did all the information in this WP article come from? Certainly not the Asahi Shimbun, which (granted) briefly mentions the website. Where are the other independent publicly verifiable sources to support this article's notability? We need at least two publicly verifiable, reliable and independent sources from the subject that are not blogs. What are they? I'm asking. J Readings 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're taking this a bit personally. I also think it's bad form to AfD an article and, at the same time, litter it with templates (though the inline ((fact)) tags are useful, and thank you). You are using terms like "weasel words" and "advertising" to describe an article that has a diversity of (apparently) good-faith edits from different users. You seem to be making a better argument for cleaning this article up than for deleting it. Just a thought, though. --- tqbf 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: thanks for the comment, but in all honesty, I don't take these issues personally. Had the term "Gaijin smash" produced at least two independent articles connected to its name, I would have happily added them. Unfortunately, Lexis-Nexis, Factiva and Google News produced nothing connected to the subject. As you know, that is never a good sign about the notability of an WP article. Best regards, J Readings 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News, business, and legal sources are not exactly the sorts of publications where one would expect to find information on this topic. Powers ^T 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of being as thorough as possible, I also checked Worldcat (for keyword and title mentions within books), "ArticleFirst" (for mentions in thousands of different publications), and a few other high-powered search engines that scan thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of different newspapers, magazines, books, doctoral dissertations, and other reliable sources. Nothing surfaced. No mentions made of "Gaijin Smash". I'm surprised that you continue to suggest that "Gaijin Smash" is notable. But in good-faith, I'll repeat the original question: what publicly verifiable, independent, reliable sources would you recommend? J Readings 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaijin Smash" OR "I am a Japanese School Teacher" --- tqbf 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I repeated the process to include tqbf's suggested keyword searches. I also included the author's name (Jeff Windham) and its various permutations. I'm afraid that nothing surfaced in any of the several search engines that I tried. Per Wikipedia policy, "Gaijin Smash" or "I am a Japanese School Teacher" or Jeff Windham do not seem to be notable subjects. J Readings 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the blog is a publicly verifiable, reliable source for its own existence (if this is tqbf's point). But is there any independent evidence for either (a) the significance or notability of this outside the blogosphere, or (b) the unusually great significance or notabiity of it within the blogosphere? As it is, all I see is a brief description within a single online article about blogs. -- Hoary 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though I'm watching this AfD and will consider any putative evidence of particular notability. -- Hoary 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Hoary 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another minor blog not worthy of an encyclopedia article despite references Fg2 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor internet sensation. Has seriously lost following. Lasted maybe 12 months max. that's a blip.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is kinda interesting read, but essentially this is about a blog site, right? Unless we have some significant sources, the topic just doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. <rant>too bad, we still have yet to have articles of this quality on many other important topics.</rant> -- Taku 08:55, 16 November 2007 (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.