Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansai Time Out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Singularity 07:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kansai Time Out

Kansai Time Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete contested prod; no independent sources to show that this newspaper is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete short article with little or no context (A1) and/ or no assertion of notability (A7), tagged. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    You don't count being a foreign-language newspaper in publication for 30 years an assertion of notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Also, A1 doesn't apply, because you can figure out that the article's about a publication. It has little content, but that's a different word, and being short is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A google search of the japanese title yields 50 hits. Not enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney talk 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, actually, it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I removed to CSD tag, since this debate was all ready going on, had just opened today, and doesn't seem to have consensus yet. I agree with Mr. Senseless that the article in its current condition could have been tagged, but I thought we may as well weigh in on it since it was brought to Afd. Having said all that, I agree that there's no showing of notability here. The article is quite new (created 3 days 2 weeks ago) so I'm not surprised its short. I would endorse deletion (weakly) but I hope that the author or others can find sourcing. If so, I'd be open to changing my position. Xymmax (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm changing my position. a proper Google search ("kansai time out" -wikipedia) produced an excerpt from successive years of a travel guide calling it "an excellent resource for information about Kyoto and the Kansai area."[1] There also is a reasonably in depth article in the Japan Times here. There are many, many other hits that I just don't have time to go through right now, but this publication appears to host film screenings [2], participate in journalism conferences [3], and just generally act like a major publication [4]. I now believe that this organization is notable. Keep. Xymmax (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Google gives me 250 hits Fg2 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that Google finds for you, and determining whether multiple in-depth published works from independent sources exist that cover this subject. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Thank you for that comment. I wish you had directed it to the person who based his vote on the number of Google hits, rather than to the person who made a nonvoting comment on it. Fg2 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through the sources Xymmax found, I believe we've enough to demonstrate notability. Keep, with the hope that Xymmax will at least copy those references to the talk page so that others can work on the article over time. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment References added to talk page as requested. Xymmax (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the newly found references assert notability. matt91486 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this really the best we can do on KTO? I really don't see anything useful in the stub, although I know there must be sources out there that can turn this into an article (they may be mostly in Japanese). Dekimasuよ! 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the newspaper being in publication for over 30 years, and the information found by Xymmax. Yes, the article can be made better, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per last two keeps-if the big dogs in the Japan project say it's notable, they know. Chris (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, thankfully this prod was contested. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:24, 23 December 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.