Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notaku

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. (aeropagitica) 08:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notaku

Was originally prodded and prod2'ed for "Insignificant neologism seemingly created for self-promotional purposes." Prod contested by original article author. Wikipedia is not for creating memes or being a soapbox. Delete -- Ned Scott 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per complete lack of sources on a neologism. There's also a strong undertone of defensiveness. --Masamage 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. ♠PMC♠ 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism, original research, and unverifiable. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - while the article has improved greatly from it's original version that doesn't change the fact that it seems to have been created as a vehicle to advertise the "Anime Sucks" community (aka NOTAKU). Most telling is the (removed) line 'The Term "Notaku" was created by Jordan Hass from "The Anime Sucks Foundation"', especially given the username of the article creator. Let's face it, if we kept this (with 500 ghits) then it would be time to being back Narutard (55,000 ghits)... (PS, I wonder how long till I get insulted as well?) Shiroi Hane 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Not long as it turns out. Shiroi Hane 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Duplicate unsigned votes by article's creator:
  • Save because Google confirms this, as well as the fact that Anime does in fact "Suck" and there is a name for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Save because Shiroi Hane loves Cowboy Bebop, as well as the fact Stephen Colbert invented Truthiness and That was not An Actual Word! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

    I do? About time I watched more than the first few episodes then I think. Shiroi Hane 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Save because of E-Drama! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Save because everything on Wikipedia is a Neologism, including Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Save because Jordan Hass Diddn't ACTUALLY create the word, Native Americans created the word back in the 14th Century, Read "Native American Phrases" section 3 part B on "Time Life Presents The Native Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

    Man, I know. 14th century anime was such crap. --Masamage 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with "Anime" under 'Critism'
  • PHYSICAL CHALLENGE Sorry Double Dare was an Awesome Show —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanhass (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

    Comment Anything in this article is original research and can't be legitimately merged into anime. And then there is the problem with weasel words. And finally, only vote once. If you intend to change your vote, strike it out first by surrounding it with the magical <s></s> tags. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not anime's biggest fan, but this term is just dumb. Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY Delete {{db-attack}} --Roninbk _{t c e #} 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree. Check out Category:Criticisms. --Masamage 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Zinirt 11:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Save Because even if the article began as a promotion, it is not one now. Futhermore, Google confirms the term, it was a word before Jordan Hass coined it, and just because has a less that admiring view towards anime, that is not a reason to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.214.149 (talk • contribs) .

  That's not at all the reason why we are deleting it. 511 Google results are ridiculously low and are almost entirely from forum posts. We're not saying the word doesn't exist, we're saying it's not notable. "Ned Scott" gets 15,800 Google hits, where's my article? -- Ned Scott 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Though a highly amusing and entertaining read. "...when in fact a majority of them, have seen current series like Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach , or Naruto." Ooh, they even watched Naruto, I'm so impressed. _dk 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Save Saying that an article should be deleted because the term only has 511 Google hits is a Catch 22. Not every term starts off with 15,800 hits. It has to be made more well known. By deleting an article about it, you're hurting its chances of ever becoming so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.24.208.245 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

  It's debateable as to whether you should be using Wikipedia to try and promote the popularity of a subject. Wikipedia isn't an advertising site or search engine. I'd say delete and IF/WHEN it becomes more popular, resubmit the article for inclusion. AA Milne 12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  Have a look at WP:NEO, in particular the paragraph "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Shiroi Hane 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's a neologism. The article is mainly original research so it would be counter productive to try to merge it somewhere else, unless it's been sorced. --Kunzite 14:51, 14 October 2006 (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.