Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Null (scanlation)

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 delete. Deizio talk 13:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Null (scanlation)

Non-notable scanlation group, does not meet WP:WEB. They translate the One Piece manga into english, a couple other minor series, and... that's it. Precedant supports this deletion, as the Dattebayo fansub group (they do Naruto, a far more popular series) had their article previously deleted. It's also unreferenced and probably unreferenceable. tjstrf 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If it's not clear, I'm saying Delete as nominator. I've also informed the WP:MANGA WikiProject of this AfD. --tjstrf 04:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non-notable and unverifiable. Mushroom (Talk) 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Null is one of the most known scanlation groups on the internet, and very old for a scanlation group. They scanlate a lot of manga, have a fansub subgroup, are probably second to lurk in terms of their irc channel and the bots they host, and run the scanlation wiki. The article is not unreferencable - although it does lack reliable references (e.g. things like newspapers and books). But i should point out that scanlation itself is a internet phenomonen that doesn't have much of a real life presence. It's internet notability can be verified by a google test. Searching for null + "one piece" + manga gets over 40 thousand results. Searching for null + scanslation also gets about that many (although null + scanlation doesn't...not sure why.). Dattebayo isn't really a precedant...since the article Dattebayo wasn't actually about the group, it was about the word (here is the article before it got redirected. Dattebayo group was mentioned for their explaination of what the word meant) --`/aksha 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply The discussion that took place on the Dattebayo AfD was over the group, not the word. The group and their site both fail WP:WEB horribly (to say nothing of WP:V) as they are not "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", nor have they "won a well known and independent award", nor are they "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". --tjstrf 04:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment i'm not commenting on the validity of deleteing Dattebayo. Just that i don't think it's a precedant, since the article Dattebayo itself was not about the same thing as the article null now is. --`/aksha 05:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fan scanlations and fansubs are by default non-notable. _dk 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Perhaps not well known or notable to the average person, but the group is pretty well-known in Manga circles. — Joshua Johaneman 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Trooof 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 11,700 ghits, a poor alexa ranking, no verifiability, (an entrance on another wiki does not make it verifiable and the other link provided has barely any information on it), and a failure of WP:WEB. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 07:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment i don't think those numbers are valid. Google test for Null using "one piece + manga" instead of "scanlation" (but still with -wikipedia) gets 38,400 results, and just null + manga -wikipedia gets even more. The alexa ranking is not really valid since Null's primary headquaters are on their irc channel, and they distribute through their irc channel too. If there's any ways to test hit counters for irc channels, then someone should do a test for #null on irc.irchighway.net --`/aksha 08:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Well searchirc could probably be used to get an idea of the popularity of the channel, only irchighway has blocked them, anyone know any other sites? — Joshua Johaneman 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The thing is, all searches for "null" anywhere receive far more hits than are actually related to the subject of this article, because of their name. The closest thing I found was a channel called #null-indo on irchighway with irc.netsplit.de. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Groups like this are awesome for the work they do, and lets face it, without them at lot of us who only speak English would be at a huge loss. However, even if an individual group is notable, it's hard to even say what that group is. They change people all the time, different people in the groups will claim different levels of involvement, etc etc. Lets say we even get past that we still need to reference it. As tjstrf, said it's pretty much unreferenceable. I doubt we'd be able to get reliable sources for such an article. As WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Other than individual reader testimony, I don't even see how we'd get past the first step I mentioned, whether or not the group is notable in the fist place (and not violate WP:NOR), let alone the other hurdles. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as was said by all supporting, it's only of importance to those deeply into manga, making it fancruft, also noting the precedent above ST47Talk 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ned Scott: unverifiable = unkeepable. — Haeleth Talk 11:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete until verified. People Powered 12:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasons given by nom and Ned. The nature of fan translation groups generally makes then non-notable and unreferenceable. This is mostly original research. --Kunzite 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity, etc. - mako 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I wouldn't call it vanity. Null is notorious for trying to keep a low profile. --tjstrf 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Eh, perhaps it was true in the past, but these days, compared to some other groups, they're hardly trying to stay hidden. Their "this ___ doesn't exist" refrain strikes me as somewhat tongue-in-cheek. - mako 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comments. Their website is a better resource anyway; anyone who hears about them and is interested would go there first, not there. --Masamage 00:13, 16 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.