Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susuwatari (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susuwatari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional creatures that don't meet the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Even for book sources I only found mention of them while the plot was being discussed. Note that these are very minor creatures that do not play any major roles in the plot of either of these films. Opencooper (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here are two non-trivial independent RS mentions: [1], [2]. For good measure, there are a bunch of other interesting mentions in both RS books and websites: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Thus, the GNG is met, and as characters that appear in multiple fictional films, neither would be an obvious redirect or merge target. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call these non-trivial. These are a few paragraphs in top-ten listicles. Notability requires in-depth coverage. The Google books links you shared are the ones I mentioned where they are being discussed as part of the plot. Lastly the weblinks just barely mention them in passing, that's all. Let me quote from WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Opencooper (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you would be incorrect. Note that sources 1 and 2 are what I'm terming clearly non-trivial, and to quote WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If you're reading GNG and thinking a couple of paragraphs about a fictional character is a trivial mention, then you need to reconsider what you consider trivial. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, and I'm embarrassed I didn't catch this before, is that in-depth coverage is not required by the GNG. Seriously--the only time "in depth" appears in WP:N is in a footnote on WP:Notability (people), isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to be a wikilawyer, at least try to be better at it; WP:GNG literally says in bold significant coverage and then expands on what that entails. Regarding your first point, look at what those couple of paragraphs actually say that is usable. most of the prose is spent putting them in context in the plot. Significant coverage for me is a book, a journal article, or multiple paragraphs that examine the subject in detail past reiterating what they are. Listicles from some no-name websites are not the paragons of reliable sources to be hinging an article's notability on and you should actually look at what they're saying that's usable to write an encyclopedic article. Opencooper (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching with "Makkuro kurosuke" instead yields more results Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL The Steve 12:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia [...] Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." I do not see how any of the results of the alternate search term constitute significant coverage. The web results just show dessert recipes, and the book results just mention them as part of the plot again. Opencooper (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added the searches to the AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because they are characters in two films by the same creator doesn't mean they're suddenly notable and need their own independent article. However, if the secondary reliable sources discuss this particular character in detail, this could be considered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an entry over in Dust bunny. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as before, there are sources for these. But this is Wikipedia and if it isn't Batman or Superman, it's up for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please form a better debate than attacking the AFD process with such a ridiculous remark.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources in independent media to establish notability, and warrant an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I urge User:Andy Dingley, User:Knowledgekid87, and every everyone else saying there are sources to actually look at those sources and what kind of coverage they provide. The mere existence of a search term does not equal notability. Anyway I'll stop commenting after this since its clear people want these creatures to have an independent article regardless of what could actually be written about them. Opencooper (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to My Neighbor Totoro. If they are not important enough to merit their own article, put them in Totoro. I just thought that since they show up in two different cartoons it would be easier to have one article, rather than to describe them twice and redundantly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge to Totoro, when they have a much larger role in Spirited Away? This is why they should stay in an independent article.

Our sofas have four loose cushions on them: two totoros, a catbus, two suswatari. I'm leaning on a susuwatari as I type this. These are every bit a character, and an externally marketable character, as others within the Ghibli canon. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As arguments go, the details of your home furnishings are not helpful to the debate.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of hits in Google Books, see this search. Enough reliable sources to build an article around, and clearly meets WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, care should be used within that list of results. Some of them can immediately dismissed and the remaining ones depends very much on context as noted by OpenCooper above. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.