Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweatdrop Studios (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: after discounting WP:SPAs and arguments which do not meet policy, there is still consensus to keep, with only one delete argument coming from someone who appears to have reviewed the improvements made (and that self-described as weak). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweatdrop Studios

Abstain. AfDing in place of {{db}} placed by someone else. There's contibutions by two existing users, and possible notability. Interiot 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Puppetry warning - See [1]. In the case that they wise up and remove it, it's a request of their forum to help out with the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that Sock Puppetry? I was under the impression that that involved multiple accounts belonging to the same person. These accounts are owned by different people, who are, yes, coming here as a result of that thread, but they are different people --User:SunKitten
    • "Meat puppetry". Calling folks from a forum to defend an article is somewhat... annoying. It's not that I fear it will affect the result, so much as that this tends to get a bunch of inexperienced users coming in to try to "vote bomb", without actually adressing the problems at hand. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tribalwar is an extreme example. Arguments from people personally involved in the topic at hand are often far less useful and objective as well. Hopefully you understand. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. That's why I commented rather than voting. I would argue that in some cases the personally involved people can offer more information than others - such as my first comment below - but that's irrelevant to this debate --user:SunKitten
      • Since you're new, you might want to read the policies at WP:V and WP:RS, and the guidelines at WP:NOTABLE and WP:VAIN to help with your arguments. Becoming notable doesn't mean that they're notable yet, and simply not being a corporation isn't really reason enough either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, hence the comment rather than the vote. I understand that being a publisher/corporation/business/dictatorship is not reason for inclusion, I was simply trying to clarify facts. I did not mention becoming notable. Thanks for the links --User:SunKitten
• Speedy Delete. These so called established users are User:Msproduct and User:Chaos X3 and are members of Sweatdrop Studios as they have stated on this thread [2]. In that thread they also state that they realise Wikipedia policies but continue to write vanity pages about themselves anyway, for instance User:Chaos X3 said Wikipedia can go screw themselves; if they want the information to further their encyclopedia, then they shouldn't be complaining where it comes from, even if the subjects write about themselves (I mean, who knows them better?). This violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. As for notability, the studio is run by forum and the checkout system is paid via paypal. The studio is an amateur club and is not a registered UK company though they state that they are UK based. [3] in fact the only information I can find on the studio is that the domain is registered to Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron). All this article amounts to is a list of amateur authors internet aliases and a collection of links to their EOL manga books which is vanity and advertising. The page has been deleted before and the same users have created it again without improvement. --Squilibob 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Changed see below--Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Squilibob. So tagged. MER-C 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like a lot of the people involved - Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron), Laura Watton, Subi, Foxy (Manga Artist), Emma Vieceli, Sonia Leong and a whole heap of redlinks have pretty tenuous claims to notability as well. Deizio talk 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The users involved have begun reviewing these other articles and have agreed to reference them as well. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Coment, though a number of the people involved seem to have books available on amazon.co.uk [4] [5] [6], with at least the Digital Manga Techniques book being sold somewhat widely [7]. --Interiot 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, that is true but none of those examples that you have listed mention Sweatdrop Studios anywhere. That is a good argument for keeping their individual articles and renaming Dock (Hayden Scott-Baron) and Subi, but that is not what this AFD is about. --Squilibob 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Would Draw Manga, by Sweatdrop Studios, count? --User:SunKitten

• Yes, that's a good reference. --Squilibob 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Myself (User:Chaos X3) and User:Msproduct are not members of Sweatdrop. Sweatdrop are recognised as a Publisher within the UK, though may be considered amateur nonetheless. Sweatdrop members write monthly slots in Neo (magazine) and host Manga Alley at the biannual London MCM Expo[8]. Sweatdrop are developing; this page does not serve as self-promotion or vanity, nor does it contain propaganda. --User:Chaos X3
  • Comment, Sweatdrop are genuine UK publishers. The six books they have published bear ISBNs and are registered with Nielsen BookData (Amazon: [9][10][11][12][13][14] )(note: this comment was intended to confirm a factual statement, and not as an opinion either way) --User:SunKitten — Possible single purpose account: SunKitten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep I believe sweatdrop are the largest non-company based publisher in the UK. they have been in existence for 5 years, and have many of their products available through forbidden planet international. 2 of the members noted with 'tenuos claims' to notability, are currently working on some of the first commisioned manga books in the UK.
• Because the group exists not as a company, but as a collective of individuals, supporting eachother, and often giving up profit, time and commercial projects to spend time on comics that make them little to no money, i believe sweatdrop deserves to be explained on wikipedia, as they are certainly unique within the UK manga scene, providing an alternative to the corporate publishing route, while offering opportunities to obtain 'notability'.--user:Palmer-san — Possible single purpose account: Palmer-san (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

*Delete, as it does not assert notability beyond simply being a publisher. It also looks like we've got a bad case of The Socks on our hands. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)</a>

• Weak Keep At least as notable as other small press publishers linked to from British_small_press_comics, given the ISBNs probably more so, though I've argued in the bast that some of those are nn cruft and should go. Artw 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should be the definative A-Z of everything, regardless of importance. If grotty little towns like Dewsbury are mentioned on Wikipedia, then why not a group of hardworking individuals like Sweatdrop. Regardless of what some people seem to think, Sweatdrop is not out for vanity or to advertise on Wikipedia. Infact a couple of totaly independent people took it upon themselves to list Sweatdrop because they love the group. I personaly think it's mean not to include things like this. I think you should have a definitve list infact; of Uk all manga producers.

This puppety thing as i understand, are people called from a forum for instance to defend an article such as this. The only people who have commented so far are me, and the pair who wrote the article to begin with, and the wiki wise Sunkitten.

We are not one person with multiple accounts, and we only comment because we care. We are also totaly independent of Sweatdrop appart from Sunkitten.

Wikipedia contains a lot of information, most of it totaly usless depending on your point of view.

I say keep the article, maybe you could refine areas you don't totaly agree with. Totaly condemning the article is wrong, especialy considering it's contents are all true. Look at the website, read the forums. You'll see that everything is right.

Wikipedia should be based on the truth, not on notariety or fame.

Most sub-atomic particles are niether well known, or perticularly exciting but they do exist, and are listed on Wikipedia. Why not Sweatdrop?

There are articles about total losers, facists, dictators, food, small chunks of ice in space, things which are theorised about in the future which nobody really knows about, assumpions about the end of the universe, even articles about what the word dickhead means. So why not Sweatdrop?

I'm not saying that these things are unworthy of an article, i'm saying that nothing should be. If it exists, is proven to exist, and that information about it is true, then it should be included.

Note: The above is just my opinion. If you delete the article then thats life. Although deleting this article because a few people decide it's unimportant or has some ulterior motive is kind of laughing in the face of truth. Sweatdrop does exist, it publishes books, and stands out from the rest of the UK manga scene. It's a fact, and that makes it important to include it. The assumption of vanity and advertising is a complete falsehood, based on some cynical observations by a couple of people who would do well to enrich their knowlege of this small but very noteworthy publisher of manga in the UK.

Go on, google up Sweatdrop, they have many mentions on other websites as well.

Well; here are just a few links:

[15] Sweatdrop Website [16] Sweatdrop profiles [17] Mentions of Sweatdrop on animeuknews.net [18] Mentions of Sweatdrop on eurofusion.net [19] Mentions of Sweatdrop on noated.net [20] Mentions of Sweatdrop on answers.com [21] Mentions of Sweatdrop on the manganese forums [22] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [23] Mentions of Sweatdrop on quarto.com [24] Sweatdrop merchandise on sale online [25] Reviews of Sweatdrop comics [26] Article about Emma Vieceli

There are many more than this by the way if you look, this is just what i have scraped off the top.

It may also be worth pointing out that if many of the other british small press people are worthy of recognition then Sweatdrop certainly are.

UKMXL 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) WRH --User:UKMXL

On Hold: I would like to put this deletion nomination on hold. I have made contact with the several editors involved on this page: [27]. Perhaps this Call to arms that is happening can be redirected from trying to save this page here on the deletion nomination page. Instead they can collaborate on just improving the page. That is what this nomination is all about after all. We don't want another rubbish, unreferenced page that just has a list of members who don't even use their real names and don't have any content about what their Studio is about. The users user:SunKitten, User:Msproduct, User:Chaos X3, user:Palmer-san and User:UKMXL obviously know more about the subject than any of us could ever know and if they just put that information on the actual Sweatdrop Studios page then this article would not only be kept but may even be a good article. I think this is a case of new users who aren't exactly sure how Wikipedia works. They argue Sweatdrop is a valid page. Prove it: Pages need content, Be Bold edit the page, reference your work and the deletion nom will fail. --Squilibob 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've attempted to edit the page, please note it's my first attempt at Wiki as well. I've given links to certain important statements such as creation dates, and editited the real names of members. There is only Foxy and Yuri that remain annoymous. I've also changed the some of the terminology to something you might find better. I've also linked each name to a Sweatdrop profile for now. If more info is required then only the original founding members can answer properly. I have also updated Foxy and Yuri's article to include samples of their work. --User:UKMXL

  Comment, I'd love to edit the page, and would have liked to do so when it appeared first, but I am a member of the group and I understand that that is frowned upon --User:SunKitten

  It isn't frowned upon. You are allowed to as long as you follow the policy stated on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

  Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

  Note the Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. which is exactly why I nominated the page for deleteion in the first place. The list has been changed into a paragraph, which is better, but it still needs context and though there are links as references, they need to be links that confirm their notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. Are there any third party reviews of these mangaka? Reference to them. If all these people are popular, and it seems that they may well be, there must be something written somewhere by someone else about them. --Squilibob 08:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

keep i'd like to thank the member who offered their help with cleaning up the sweatdrop article earlier (crustacean man?) - i will be happy to update the article with some more information, but i am quite busy and find it difficult to get to grips with the format (altho obviously i'll try my best to make it decent).

i am not a sweatdrop member but have known of the group for just over a year and own several of their comics, books and the magazines they have been featured in. i also have a website with a couple of amateur reviews of their works (e.g. http://www.mangacite.com/Reviews/review_SD_stardust.htm )

the group is the major driving force in UK manga and therefore i would consider the entry on them worth keeping

• Keep - I am happy to report that I wish to change my opinion to keep. After much discussion on the Sweatdrop Studios forum, several editors have added substantially to the article and it has changed from this to its current form. The page still needs some more references but there's no reason to delete it as has at least a dozen references to comply with Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. All my concerns have been addressed. --Squilibob 15:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weaker Delete (consider it closer to Delete than to Weak Delete), the article has improved. It still doesn't really say anything for, say, their popularity. Amazon sources also don't do a terrific amount to establish notability, as I've found it's not that difficult to be listed on there. I can find several sources referencing them on the interwebs, but they all look like plain press releases, which doesn't speak much about their notability. We've had outright hoaxes come through AfD before that had extensive press release Google hits, and that's about it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I understand where you're coming from. I have asked them to supply some third party Reliable sources, which they have done, three unrelated magazine references. --Squilibob 02:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; two of which are just talking about the artists as individuals. I'm not certain if NEO magazine is at the point of notability at which things associated with it become notable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - A user has suggested this review as a review. I have found this one which even has some critisism. What do you think? I think the second one has some merit. --Squilibob 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been avoiding all anime/manga-related site news and press releases because I assumed they didn't count as sufficiently notable and were not as neutral as sources such as the London Graphics Centre or UniOrb. That second review is in any case based on a press release issued by Sweatdrop at the time of release of the books it's talking about, which based on comments on this page again I thought wouldn't suffice. If it is good, then I have a lot more references I can add - SunKitten

• Keep - They're an important and notable part of the British small press comics scene. I have a significant history in that area and I don't think most aspects of small press comics deserve Wikipedia entries, but this lot do. Peteashton 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -

 To begin, it is stated in the attention box above. 

‘Deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)'

And so I put the fullness of my argument to you Consumed Crustacean. First, in relation to Neo magazine.

Neo magazine is the only UK based magazine dealing with manga and anime, and the only one to be found in non specialist shops there period. The only main competition it would have is in specialist comic stores from the American or Japanese version of NEWTYPE magazine. But, they have sole magazine coverage of the UK anime/manga scene. It’s a valid reference. But frankly, I don’t think it’s as famous as Sweatdrop is.

As a section of culture which only continues to expand in popularity, individuals who have no interest in that sub-culture may consider the likes of Neo and SD to be of no importance. However, that does not detract from the status of said groups. Those two groups along with the Tokyo pop Rising stars of manga competition constitute the core of the UK and Irish manga scene. Sweatdrop, through its tutorials and constant presence exceeds the other two in importance, is literally educating and supporting the next generation of UK and Irish manga artists, and frankly whether it is listed in wikipedia or not, will go down in history as the source of the organised manga creation scene in the UK. They simply can’t be robbed of that fact. Anyone with even remote familiarity with the manga subculture in the UK or Ireland has been exposed to sweatdrop. And the list of companies that they collaborate with includes industry leaders like letraset, Wacom etc.

Who are wacom??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacom they make the leading brand of graphics tablet used by artists the world over, but many people have no idea who they are, because of course they are only famous within the artistic community. My point is, just because a lot of people don’t know who wacom are, does not mean they aren’t of core importance to certain groups. Without them, the digital art community would probably crumble overnight.

And here, on wacoms site, wacom, who sell to the whole world of digital artists is Sonia Leong's work, SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS. http://www.wacom-europe.com/manga/manga.asp?lang=en&pdx=10 and on that page are also the words Sweatdrop studios.

Also, the references named above which 'are just talking about the artists as individuals' were to cite that Sweatdrop is mentioned before every tutorial said artists give in a leading concept art magazine which is read world wide a.k.a. the artists market themselves as Sweatdrop artists. When you consider the magazine in question has articles in it by the likes of ADI GRANOV and others who did concept art for everything from batman to star wars, names which might mean nothing to you, but once again, within the art community holds high esteem you have to realise Sweatdrop relative importance. It was made totally clear in the references that they accompanied tutorials by the artists in said magazines. It would be unfair to expect the magazine to allow a huge rant about Sweatdrop pre every tutorial by their members, and expecting such as proof of their position is unrealistic because that would never happen for any company.

For example. When you buy a pair of Nike shoes, you don’t get a 10 page rant about the company in the box. And the store selling the shoes isn’t handing out such rants either. Similarly, where Sweatdrop provides a service, there is no rant about them either. The very fact that they are providing the service, for magazines like neo, Imagine Fx, and companies like Wacom is the proof of their credibility.

In the October 2006 imagine fx magazine ISSN 9771 7489 3000 3 10> Sweatdrop is mentioned in the same breath as the biggest names in manga worldwide "other big publishers include Manga Entertainment, which is somewhat more focused on anime and DVD releases, Dark horse comics and Sweatdrop studios." -page 24 The fact that Sweatdrop in not an official company, but the blood sweat and tears of people with 9-5 jobs makes this ever more remarkable.

Imagine FX august 2006 page 27

Results of a competition run by Sweatdrop, and sponsored by IMAGINE FX, LETRASET, WACOM ,E FRONTIER AND TOKYOPOP are announced.

this proves a professional working relationship between SD and these very very respectable companies.

If you go to Tokyopop right now http://www.tokyopop.com, the leading manga publisher outside Japan, there is Sweatdrop artist Joanna Zhou featured, and advertised as 'of the Sweatdrop crew'.

Of note is that the article which was being judged here has changed to a degree that it is unrecognisable from the one set for deletion, for this alone, the article should be re-examined and re-voted upon after a short period to complete updating of the wiki.

Also, if you can find me another manga circle in the UK, or even outside Japan that can list credentials, and companies, and magazines like those Sweatdrop are associated with, ill be very very impressed. Credit where credit is due gentlemen. And in this case, that credit is your simple recognition of their right to be known. Various links have been provided, magazines cited in their defence, examples of their name associated with big companies within the trade.

I think you will agree, there is nothing unfair about that. At the very least deletion should be withheld for a month, to give time for the wiki, and a full list of magazine citations to be included. The problem is of course, any such citation can be negatively spun to being a form self praise, but, without it you doubt the importance or accomplishments of the group... How you resolve these two conflicting directives I do not know. Can you not accept all these references provided to you, and leave them out of the wiki, so it does not look like a list of ' look what I can do' references? It would seem that whichever direction they move in to appease you folks, they’re damned. Leave as in - not enough proof. Provide proof - tooting ones own horns.

Thus and for many similar reasons, the counter argument is flawed, and has failed to provide any proof to damage the validity of the citations provided.

Crustacean Man and the counter argument in general are being unreasonable in its view, as it was willing to be dismissive of the proof given. SD was asked for citations, and I provided numerous. Many of which were looked down for no solid reason. If Sweatdrop can be asked to provide proof , and provide it, then sir I say when you discredit that proof you must provide proof of your own, Questioning whether one magazine was valid as a source with the words 'I’m not sure' is unacceptable in such a situation, as you disregard the burden of proof you lay on others, and saying the other citations were just about the artists themselves when in fact it is stated plainly that they were bios quotes that accompany all of their tutorials in said magazine, and that I was quoting the bios to show hat the artists market themselves via the Sweatdrop name shows a clear willingness to pick and choose elements of the facts to reflect a distorted truth which favours your argument. This is unacceptable.

In addition to this, the links provided above, in respect to tokyopop and wacom, are proof undeniable for the case of keeping the SD wiki, where your current counter argument sir is based on mis representation of the facts I provided, which were cited in accordance with the submission rules of this institution. If you are unwilling to investigate my citations properly by buying said magazines , or contacting said companies to disprove said proof, then you have no basis to cast their validity into question, an by doing so you fundamentally weaken your argument to the point where it can no longer be upheld as rational. That is why I respectfully ask you to withdraw your argument at this point.

My argument is one filled with citation from site after site, magazine after magazine, company page after company page.

All the counter argument has done is attempt to tear down that proof with speculation. To any reasonable onlooker, the burden of proof overwhelms any current attempt to discredit it. Until the counter argument is willing to stand up, with proof to discredit these citations -you have no valid argument.

In closing I would say to the administration.

Sweatdrop has proved their existence, and that that existence is exceptional, through various citations from established sources. To include such citations in the wiki would be viewed by many as clear self indulgence and self promotion on their part, providing them with an angle to once again attack the SD wiki. Thus I ask that the issue of burden of proof of Sweatdrop’s importance to the UK manga scene and the validity of its connections to various leading creative companies be dropped as an issue, unless Wikipedia is willing to allow a list of shining citations which would only serve as self promotion, thus breaking the established rules against such behaviours. The burden of proof asked of sweatdrop by the counter argument was severe, and the proof provided was questioned in a very unreasonable fashion in that it was based on no valid source. A house of cards counterargument based on simple nay saying.

The only reasonabe decision, within a system which survives through the value of fact, of citation, is to disregard the validity of the counter argument due to a lack of anything but nebulous accusations and award the right to exist to the sweatdrop wiki which has clearly defended itself to a far more professional degree those who would act for its deletion.

James Gammell- October 15- 2006-17.08

Strong keep. I cannot fathom why this article is being considered for deletion. Sweatdrop studios is an important part of the UK Manga scene and should have a clear article on Wiki. As for the source of the information, as long as it is accurate I don’t see why we should discriminate against it. Butch-cassidy 08:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. Sweatdrop Studios are very well-known in UK anime and manga circles. MoonShadow 12:29, 17 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.