Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 1

MyAnimeList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Requesting a history undeletion. Previously requested history-only undelete seems to be unfulfilled. Request was made a few months ago, but since a COI tag has been posted, the edit history of this article before its deletion is now very relevant Kei-clone (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You just want the edits deleted in this afd to be restored? Protonk (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • edits made before the afd resulted in its deletion, correct Kei-clone (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...did I miss something or did I ask for the wrong thing? I don't see any changes in the History of the article =\ Kei-clone (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's been restored all right. See the log entry. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • heh, guess it took a bit of time for it to show up...or something else. Thanks :) Kei-clone (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Premature. Not sufficient discussion. The AfD should have been re-listed to attract additional eyeballs and discussion ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I received this note on my talk page from Sladillard (talk · contribs): Thanks for deleting my bio from Wikipedia; and I mean that sincerely. I agree that I am not in any way noteworthy enough to warrant my own wikipedia bio. Keep up the good work! Steve Dillard. In addition, Walshga (talk · contribs) laid out the case for deletion pretty well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Dillard, and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) agrees. As this is a case where the subject is lacking significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, I think we should respect the subject's wishes in this matter. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD has no quorum and this was listed for 5 days. What exactly is the failure of process here? Endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  that's only one route. If you want to interpret it as "required" suggest the policy change. I don't think it will gain consensus, since we do not put procedural barriers in the way of questioning administrative actions--we should rather encourage it. For a close of a disputed afd made without giving reasons, someone might well concude--rightly or wrongly--that the admin is not open to further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

  As we've previously discussed, I wish to understand why the nominator chose not to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page, and I do not !vote in this discussion until I have a reply, or until a reasonable time has passed. I think that's a reasonable position. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, I should have discussed this with admin that deleted the page, but given her response here, I think that it is now unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist This deletion needed further discussion. It was acknowledged that 3rd party sources were present, but it was asserted that some of the sourcing was from the person's official business profile---but such is accepted for uncontroversial facts about someone's career. I am open to the argument that the material presented in the 3rd party sources is also just the statements of the subject in an interview, but it needs discussion. DGG (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• relist Should go through a full AfD. Note that there is a claim that the subject requested deletion which if verified would likely push for deletion also. However, there's no confirmation that this individual is the subject of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) Endorse. I agree that there were salient issues that were not fleshed out in the discussion that occurred. I probably would have relisted this myself, or !voted. However, there is absolutely no error with process here. I do not wish to be unduly bureaucratic, but when a discussion is properly listed, commented on, and closed within the range of the closer's discretion, our review here is done. If someone wants to create a better article in user space and bring it back, that's fine. N.B. In response to the above, this did go through a full AfD, for whatever reason failed to get much attention, and was closed after being listed for 5 days. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The above comments made me go back and look again; I didn't notice initially that the AfD was closed 14+ hours early. Consensus wasn't sufficiently clear to justify an early close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisted. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cost per Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Concerning the proposed deletion of Cost per Day.

I have zero connection to this company and in no way was trying to promote their products or services. I am a surveyor of the Digital Signage industry as a whole and find their approach mathematical, analytical and scientific and I wanted to share that with others here on wikipedia, in a attempt to see if others would add their knowledge about the algorithmic formula they employ.

Please restore. thank you.

Joshua —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrubenstein76 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha_Discordia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AFD2)

Out of process closure by User:Aervanath (now an admin). The consensus was nowhere near what he did: restore the version that somehow was kept two years ago. Furthermore, the sources in the old AfD do not stand up to scrutiny as WP:RS, and the article lacks inline citations. I ask for the AfD to be reopened, because several editors !voted delete. Also, the relevant notability guideline, WP:BK, did not even exist in May 2006, so closing "per previous AfD" is just ignoring the community consensus that has emerged in this area in the mean time. Pcap ping 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord - it was 2.5 years ago, just renominate it for AfD. --Smashville^talk 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a link to the actual AFD. Strange close. I'd vacate it myself and relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just renominate it. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the consensus so far seems to be renominating it. I'm going to do that. I think this process-focused discussion can be closed now. Pcap ping 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Senate candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) Category:United States House of Representatives candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

These two categories were deleted today based on a CFD from early 2007 - presumably after the 2006 elections were all squared away. There were very few articles about failed candidates which merited survival, so those articles probably were AFD'd and the categories were no longer needed. But as the 2008 election cycle approached, the categories were both created and well used. And now that the 2008 elections are over, there are several articles this time which will survive deletion. So the categories should survive, too. Frankly, I think a CFD discussion could have been merited instead of the speedily deletion today. In fact, there was a related CFR discussion which mentioned the Reps category here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 14.}} —Markles 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of both categories. A good example of overcaterization. The original debate was here, they were not deleted because of lack of articles but actually the opposite reason. Garion96 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of both; do not re-create. I'm also not convinced that the rationale for deletion that Markles sets out is the one that the participants of the deletion discussions based their opinion on. It's certainly not the rationale that was given for deletion by the nominator. The rationale for deletion was the large number of articles that could potentially be added to these categories, "swelling the category beyond any possible hope of usefulness". Others commented that nominees are often obscure and/or their notability usually does not stem from being a candidate. I think the latter point is the clincher for me. It is unlikely that a person with an article in WP will have that article primarily because of their failed candidacy for one of these positions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Good Olfactory said everything I want to say. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per GO. --Kbdank71 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed extra header. lifebaka++ 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn because of the invalid and inconsistent criteria used. It is being simultaneously argued that too few people will fit into the categories, and simultaneously that the categories will be swollen beyond the point of usefulness. I do not see how both can possibly be true. But neither are correct: Addduming this is limited to failed candidates, then , given a two party system, the number of candidates running is not much more than the number of candidates elected. And there is a trend is recent AfDs to consider a major party candidate for a nataional office to be notable--I think almost all of them would be able to find sources for this is thoroughly investigated --consensus seems to be changing in that direction,. If so, we could easily handle it. There is no such thing as too large a category,because it is always possible to subdivide it. After all we have Category:Members of the United States Congress -- divided, reasonably enough, by states. The category is grossly underpopulated, but if we got them all historically, as we should, it could be divided chronologically. DGG (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just curious, where did someone state that too few people will fit in the category? The only one who mentioned that reason was the editor who started this review. Since he thought, mistakingly, that this was the reason the categories were deleted in the first place. Garion96 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The most current discussion of the latter category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_14#Category:United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_candidates, just under two weeks ago resulted in a conclusion of Merge. The preceding CfD from February 2007 is now in an invalid justification to delete the category. Alansohn (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As the closer of the most recent CFD, for the record, had I been aware of the 2007 CFD, I would have closed the 2008 CFD as delete/recreations. --Kbdank71 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I was one of the three participants in that CFD, and as my comments there made clear, I only supported merging as a short term solution to having two duplicate categories. I did not (and do not) express support for keeping the category. Postdlf (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DGG and Alansohn. John254 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per GO. Postdlf (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as original nominator. The original reasons for deletion still stand and there has been nothing introduced at this DRV that indicates either that the original CFDs included a procedural error on the part of the closing admin or that new information has come to light regarding the categories. That an admin failed to realize in a recent CFD that one of the categories was re-created in violation of previous consensus does not invalidate the result of the previous CFD. DGG is incorrect that the number of failed candidates will be no more than the number of successful candidates because incumbent candidates are not categorized as members of Congress multiple times, whereas each new congressional election will bring several hundred new failed candidates (including some third party candidates, something DGG does not contemplate in his two-party system reasoning). Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Nothing seems untoward in the original closure. Also, something that also seems to be being missed here is that the candidates for each house of the US Congress are candidates by district. These categories apparently were just broadly group all candidates together in a mish-mosh. And creating 535+ subcats just makes this all sound like even worse overcategorisation. And incidentally, keep deleted, per WP:OC#CANDIDATES, as well-explained by GO. (Since this DRV is apparently being used as a CFD2.) - jc37 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

The closing admin ignored the on going discussion and used his/her own view on the topic to close the AfD process. The admin also listed a secondary sources as primary based on lack of knowledge on the topic and possibly ABF on keepers. Extra sources are now also listed in talk page of AfD MythSearcher^talk 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admin was invited by User:Jtrainor to discuss, but continued to use same arguments as the closing of the AfD which is not looking for consensus but deleting the page with his/her own subjective reasoning on the subject. With the admin missing in the discussion after quite some people popped out to point out the problem of the deletion reasoning, the admin stopped replying. While it might take time to reply, the admin's closing reason of the AfD is very problematic and further action should be applied. MythSearcher^talk 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Endorse deletion. I can see no failure to follow the deletion process; the closing admin wrote a well-thought out rationale and explained his reasoning on the AFD talk page, and the outcome, while close, was within acceptable parameters. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • His/her reasoning should come from the consensus of the AfD discussion, where the reasoning of the closing admin is more of his/her own view. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There would be no AFD closes if people didn't consider all the arguments, as I have. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of assuming bad faith against keep voters; simply put, I reviewed their side, didn't find it to be strong enough, and closed appropriately. As I've said on the talk page, I'm supposed to use discretion to close something that is contested. You're right, everyone interprets consensus differently; another administrator may have chosen to keep the article. Anyways, blindly closing an AFD isn't possible as there's no way to do so (AFD isn't a vote, after all). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not understand your argument. A book published by third party company who hired outside help from third party studios and academic experts is deemed to be a primary source just because of the name? MythSearcher^talk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The AfD argument was mostly about how an article about a fictional universe could be notable enough for Wikipedia, taking WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR into account. Some editors thought that the coverage recieved was enough for the article to pass WP:N while others (including myself) believed the sources to be too-closely aligned with the subject. An administrative judgement call had to be made and the closing admin even left a message on the talk page explaining his rationale for deletion per the general notability guidelines saying the coverage wasn't significant enough. This is why we have administrators close AfDs, and not bots. Just because the admin ignored User:Mythsearcher's order to interprete the guidelines the same as s/he does doesn't mean the closure was inappropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sources, as long as they are secondary, we should use the most authoritative sources, thus the best sources used should be focused on the topic instead of some remote sources that is not covering the topic in detail. This has happened in multiple AfD already, the number of sources are never enough, and the sources are either insignificant, not notable or too-closely aligned with the subject, which covers everything if you combine them all, you can use the same arguments on ANY article with 5 sources or less(or 10 sources or less) to support a delete. You are saying a physics book as a source to support a physics phenominant is too closely aligned with the subject so that the source does not count, or a science magazine is not specified in physics thus that source is not notable, etc. I am sorry, but this process is all YOUR game, with YOUR presumptions and never listen to who ACTUALLY got hold of the source and has more knowledge on the topic. I can fully understand why wikipedia does not work now, thank you, any source could be challenged by anyone with your arguments. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There comes a point when a source may be too closely aligned to its subject. Most everybody would agree that a person would not be notable enough for inclusion if the only source found was his autobiography. Would he be if his mother wrote about him in her autobiography? Probably not. Or if his best friend wrote about him? Or his teacher because he was a good student? What if someone was sexually attracted to the guy and wrote about him because of that? You see, the closest relations to an article oftentimes are biased because of how close they really are. A magazine that specializes in the world of Gundam is a special-interest publication published for and by those who are interested in trivial aspects of the subject which are far too dense to be included in an encyclopedia. The best-friend of John X would have very useful material about him but that source alone wouldn't justify inclusion. Similiarly, magazines devoted to Gundum contain good information about the subject but they don't prove notability unless they are substantially marketed and read outside the gundum fanbase. Themfromspace (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same reason as above, with more, a third party company that predates the anime hired third party experts to talk about the topic, and you insist it is a primary source? First, the magazine itself is NOT specifically dedicated to Gundam, it predates the anime, it is a magazine that is about all anime. The special edition published is simply because the material is too much to be included in the monthly issue and thus they published another book to do the job. This is not an autobiography nor anything the original anime company created, they are numerous anime out there for them to create books for, like most 80's anime magazine that they don't get paid from the anime company, they simply earn from material published. So your argument about the company is devoted to Gundam is incorrect, and your too aligned argument is saying an anime magazine is too aligned to one single anime, while they have publish numerous material for other anime, none where similar to this one that is more of a scientific journal tagged with an anime topic. MythSearcher^talk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (e.c.) Endorse deletion, but MoP's closure rationale could have been a lot better. Here's my analysis. First of all, the "count" is 9 to 6 in favor of deletion. (10 to 6 if you count MoP; normally one woudn't but it was asserted that the closer should have added his opinion rather than closed the debate...) In my view, that's a substantial supermajority. This counts the "transwiki" comments as delete opinions, because they amount to the same result for Wikipedia; it also counts the IP editor who argued for transwiki. It also, however, counts MalikCarr's very marginal comment. So the weight of consensus substantially favors deletion. Count is not the only factor, but other factors also favor deletion as an outcome. For one thing, only one narrow claim of the deletion arguments was substantially refuted, and that was the assertion that the magazines represent primary sources. There was contention about that; personally, I disagree -- magazines are by definition secondary sources. But it's somewhat irrelevant because the bigger point is that the deletion argument was that the sources do not establish notability; whether these sources were secondary or primary doesn't affect whether they were really independent, whether they had substantial coverage, whether they presented an out-of-universe perspective, et cetera. Furthermore, even if the introductory material in the article established that the technology of Universal Century is notable, it doesn't do anything to justify a list of such technologies (this was the point DGG was trying to argue but I think his argument was rebutted by Jay32183 -- basically, notability is not inherited.) Finally, as to the merits of the arguments about the quality of sources, fan-related magazines are clearly less independent than we should normally look for. MoP's point, though not part of the debate, is well-taken -- if fan-generated content can become part of the universe canon, how reliable can that content be -- basically, they could make things up and have it become true. So on balance, there would have been little to argue with here if MoP had simply said "the outcome was delete" or stuck to pre-existing arguments. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT a vote, and if you want notability of the topic, check out the extra source I have listed in the AfD talk page, do NOT tell me 5 sources with 1 using this as a title and claims that it inspired several real-lilfe research is not notable. The so call fan-generated content is not the concern here, the concern is that the source itself is secondary AND about the topic while reflecting the fictional technologies relation with real world technologies. MythSearcher^talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "AfD is not a vote" doesn't mean we should ignore the weight of community opinion. On the contrary, it should decide most issues, so long as there was substantive discussion and policy is followed. Second, I didn't take it from your request that you were asking for the decision to delete to be reconsidered in light of new sources. If that's what you're saying, then, (1) isn't this kind of soon after the debate, and (2) I can't read Japanese and you haven't even claimed any specific information to be contained in those sources. A quick google books search came up with over a hundred hits for Gundam Universal Century; obviously there's plenty of material written about Gundam. But the structure of the Gundam articles here is just awful: Universal Century for instance, is practically devoid of information, other than links to extremely specific topics. We have dozens of summary articles on Gundam topics. "List of technology" seems redundant to some of the ones we still have, like List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units and the two other mobile units lists in {{gundam}}. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the structure is awful, help fixing it, not spend time trying to argue why they are not notable when some one can provide sources that showed at least it is to some degree important. I have supported numerous AfDs with delete arguments and applied them to a point where I was personally attacked by keepers, and the one that I can provide sources, several of them, and wished to save was simply ignored since a third party company publishing a book with a correct title and it is labeled as a primary source. MythSearcher^talk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who personally attacked you? I didn't see any of that. Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those are in deleted pages talk page or merged talk page, I don't remember which article, but it is one of the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED related articles, possibly mecha related. MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Yes, I was arguing, among other things, that since the series is very highly notable then the major components of it share or contribute in a major way to the notability. I don't regard this a inherited notability, which I think should be kept where it belongs--for literal relatives, or for minor association. The technology here is basically an article about probably the key and characteristic and defining element of the setting, and a feature for which this series is as least as well known as the characters. Of course, all this could principle be covered in the main article, but there is so much material here that it would overbalance it, and thus a split is justified. DGG (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn DGG makes a good argument. But note also that no compelling explanation for why the magazine articles were primary sources was provided. That substantially weakens the argument for deletion and was not adequately addressed. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As stated, no compelling argument for why the magazine articles are primary sources was provided. Indeed, the ONLY such argument that was put forth is that "the magazines are primary sources because they have Gundam in their names", which is clearly ridiculous. Jtrainor (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this 'clearly ridiculous'? What's the reasoning concerning a magazine with strong affiliations with a subject publishing something about the subject not being primary? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mere dedication of content to a particular subject does not imply "strong affiliations" with the same, any more than Wikipedia Review's nearly exclusive discussion of Wikipedia implies that they are strongly affiliated with us. While Wikipedia Review itself isn't a reliable source, this status derives from their message board format and lack of editorial control -- certainly not because they are regarded as shills for the Wikimedia Foundation. John254 04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG, JoshuaZ, and Jtrainor: specialist sources are not, ipso facto, either primary or unreliable. John254 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I agree that there was no real explanation given as to why independent (ie not owned by Bandai/Sunrise) magazines are to be considered "primary sources". Also, reading through the AfD I failed to see a consensus of any kind. — Red XIV ^(talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be very clear: WP:N (as a result of WP:BURDEN) demands independent sources: meaning that we shouldn't base an article on material provided by people involved with the subject. For fiction this means the obvious sources: "primary" ones (the Gundam games, manga and television shows) and it means captive "sources" ('Zines owned by the production company or sources which otherwise have a financial (or other) incentive to cover their own material. At the most basic, this means we don't source articles to ad copy. For most cases, this means we don't rely on Nintendo's blog to tell us about some new gadget. This does not mean that specialty sources such as niche magazines, websites or shows which meet WP:RS are to be rejected as "too parochial". I haven't looked at the magazines myself but if they aren't owned by the company that makes Gundam and they have (1) a reputation for fact checking, (2) editorial control, and (3) accountability for authorship, we should consider them perfectly acceptable. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I see the circumstance wherein "delete per nom" is an acceptable rationale to kill an article whereas a similar claim to keep is "marginal" is still in full effect here. Groan. The same arguments we've seen before are coming out of the woodwork too - AfD isn't a vote (when deletion fails), but AfD is a "weight of community opinion" (when it passes). We also saw an argument that I've long dreaded seeing in such succinct terms raised - specifically, that very few fictional subjects can be addressed on Wikipedia, because independent sources cannot be reliable, and primary sources cannot be the determinant of notability, ergo delete. Finally, we've got rather blatant ethnocentrism displayed here as well - we view subject materials whose licenses are held in Japan through an American perspective on what is copyrighted and what can be reprinted independently, with the assumption to, of course, delete because anything verifiable must be a primary source. Utter trash.

• Is that less "marginal" enough? MalikCarr (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The close appears to be based on misinterpretations of the sources provided. The wording of the close appears to be dismissive of this particular fictional presentation, without taking into account what appear to be valid sources supporting the claims. As this is a valid fork of a notable article, and as the close appears to reflect the admin's personal preferences on the issue, rather than a dispassionate interpretation of consensus, the close is out-of-process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closer and many of the delete votes were based on the spurious idea that magazines published by separate companies from the one that created the series were primary sources. Based on that reasoning, no magazine could ever be a secondary source, which is obviously incorrect. Edward321 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]