Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabukinchan (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 no consensus. east.718 at 01:29, 11/4/2007

[edit] Anabukinchan

Anabukinchan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This does not meet notability criteria, the old AFD is very old and should be reconsidered. Also sounds like original research with no reliable sources Pilotbob 04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The nomination was originally placed at the top of the original 2005 VfD (can be seen here) I am splitting off this nomination onto its own page. -- saberwyn 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep not notable as an internet meme, but notable as a Japanese advertising character. This was a pretty major campaign, and the fact that it recieved worldwide attention only underscores that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how being a advertising character for a company that itself is not notable enough for inclusion warrants an article here. Pilotbob 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While there isn't currently an article for Anabuki that I know of, if someone created one they'd pass WP:CORP by miles and would be in no danger of deletion. See this page for some stats. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this survives the AfD, a line needs to go into the article explaining the breasts thing. It's a silly simple pun, really, but this is not explained, not in the article, not in the bumbling guesswork of the so-called "explanation of the lyrics" link. TomorrowTime 07:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep This is one of those Japanese cultural things that will never be understood elsewhere. jonathon 04:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand it either, but just to delete it because we don't understand it is just pure ostrichness. The interested editors can always edit it for us to appreciate it. Anyways, has the nominator notified the concerned Wikiproject or editors prior to deletion nomination? I think it is just common courtesy to do so.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article has no secondary sources as evidence of notability. Just because a company employs humour in its advertising campaign does not make it notable; Wikipedia is not a link farm for viral videos.--Gavin Collins 08:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It does need third party sources, which are available in Japanese.jonathon 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would they be reliable secondary sources? If they just say "This is a funny video", they would be of no value. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable, non-trivial third party publications can be located about this subject. It does not matter if they are in Japanese, English, or another recognizable language. Burntsauce 16:36, 30 October 2007 (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.