Deletion of Futaba Channel

Comment: Passes  handily, but needs more sourcing. However I have to object to one of the delete votes that appears to be based upon the lack of "scholarly" sources. That's not a criteria for keeping articles in Wikipedia, otherwise 99% of them would have to go. I know some people would like that, but that not what Wiki is all about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: If an article is just lacking sources, then tag it with {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|refimprove}}. AfD is not for discussing improving an article which is notable, but may lack the |reliable sources to support it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Being a popular site does not show notability per . There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The links in the article do not show notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: WP:NOTINHERITED|Notability is not inherited from the notability of 4chan. I came up with a blank in a Google search, Gnews search, and a translation of the abovementioned jp.wikipedia article for sources. It needs to establish |notability (web content) ''independent'' from the other chans out there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: popularity does not meet . There is no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources, and what other sites may be using its software is irrelevant. This site fails all  criteria, and all  criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", it has not won any "well-known and independent awards from either a publication or organization" nor is its content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."  It has not been demonstrated to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I can't even find a SINGLE reliable source that discusses this site, and the one source in the article is of questionable reliability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N||WP:WEB)

Comment: I strongly recommend that those who promote the deletion of this article based on our own home-spun, OR-created definition of "notability" next nominate Lee Harvey Oswald for deletion based on . I mean seriously, I suppose there ''might'' be some sourcing on this person in the American language (although I just searched through sources in Tlingit and found nothing on him which passes ), but I challenge those who claim Oswald is notable to stop whining and prove that he did ''two'' things which pass notability criteria
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:V)

Comment: Before |ignoring , , see other discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tino Georgiou. I'm sure there are many other examples of deletion discussions based on  and . ''"Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, '''not''' by counting votes."'' ({{tl|Not a ballot}}). See also: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#What is deletion for?|What is deletion for?. If you wanna keep, you have to find reliable, third-party, published sources. Otherwise, the article must be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNORE||WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:RS||WP:IS)

Comment: Bah, I just spent about two hours digging through machine-translated pages from google.co.jp and news.google.co.jp. Literally nothing. I'm thoroughly convinced we're not going to find "reliable, third-party, published sources" for this topic as of now - but the article has to stay. It's far too popular to be non-notable; perhaps the sources policy can merely be |overlooked, with the hope that supporting references will appear in the future? To quote from : "''an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, '''lack sufficient sources''', or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia.''" With that in mind, it's clear that there's no benefit to be had from deletion here. I'll reiterate my '''strong keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNORE||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Clearly meets , despite currently lacking sources, as a machine translation of the ja.wiki article can readily verify. Assertions that cleanup tags do not work are fallacious, and not doing homewo-- er, I mean, following  is problematic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BEFORE)