- 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. Uncontested, would not have needed two relists. Sandstein 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- No Need for Bushido ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources given do not show notability or SIGCOV. BEFORE shows mostly that ITEXISTS. Article is mostly a "book report" laden w/ fancruft. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Comics and animation,
Anime and manga, and
Japan.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
-
Comics Bulletin source has SIGCOV. I removed bulk of the fancruft and obviously unreliable source. Time Waster's Guide seems to be a fan blog, not sure on its reliability. I think this comic has a potential to be notable. I will try digging through google
Carpimaps
talk to me!
10:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- The last discussion took place in 2005 and it was based on now-nonexistent guideline. Not worth looking through that.
- I looked through around three pages of Google and found no reliable SIGCOV. Others may have a go at this.
- FYI, this is timewaster's staff page [1]. Carpimaps talk to me! 10:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
-
Comics Bulletin source has SIGCOV. I removed bulk of the fancruft and obviously unreliable source. Time Waster's Guide seems to be a fan blog, not sure on its reliability. I think this comic has a potential to be notable. I will try digging through google
Carpimaps
talk to me!
10:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Only a single SIGCOV source and none found with Google. Bensci54 ( talk) 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previous AFD and attempted PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the WP:SILENCE speaks volumes. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Just Another Cringy Username,
- In general, AFDs have seen lower participation over the past few months. I don't have the numbers on it but the number of editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions (not just come to discuss one or two articles) definitely seems lower than it did six months ago or a year ago. It's not unusual to have to close discussions like this one where one editor or even no editors have weighed in on whether or not an article should be deleted. But I do relist them because I've also seen 3 or 4 editors pop in after two or three relistings so you never know. But I think this one will not be relisted again.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. Any idea why? How would such an AfD close (as in keep, no-consensus, or delete)?
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
00:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, about 12-15 months ago, AFD was overloaded with AFDs on athletes, dozens and dozens nominated each day, given the newly formed guidelines on sports notability and the sides for Delete and Keep were pretty entrenched. I think after going through the same fierce arguments hundreds of times, most of the participating editors got understandably burned out on the process of coming to a consensus. That would explain lower participation in sports-related AFDs, maybe it had some after effect on AFDs in general. But I wouldn't be surprised if many editors actively participate for a year or two and then move on to less contentious areas of the project like creating and improving articles. One is less likely to run into conflict doing that, I think.
- As for how to close a low participation deletion discussion, I've seen a number of different outcomes over the years. The policy most often cited though is WP:NPASR and that offers some guidance. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. Any idea why? How would such an AfD close (as in keep, no-consensus, or delete)?
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
00:54, 3 July 2023 (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.