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.
Delete--I am not convinced by the very thin coverage of this, and adding links to a retailer (like
Animate (retailer)) or to websites that aren't reliable secondary sources really just makes it worse. And one sentence in a Billboard interview, that's also not enough to keep.
Drmies (
talk)
01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't have a lot of faith in the conclusions drawn by that community, but either way--how does one sentence in an interview with Billboard help establish notability? And why in the world would a commercial outlet ever be an acceptable secondary source contributing to notability?
Drmies (
talk)
02:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment:Animate is a retailer, but their parent company of the same name also operates other business endeavors, such as owning
Libre, anime cafes, etc. Animate Times is just a website offering anime news that just happens to be owned by them.
lullabying (
talk)
22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment
The Yonkey Talks article is not a review, talks about the project from the creator and is primary.
The Crunchyroll ref is an announcement. It is not a review and is taken straight from the youtube channel annoucement. It is primary.
The Natalie reference is taken from the youtube channel as well. It is primary.
I can get to the Mantan ref as 403 forbidden.
The Animate Times is a press-release. An annoucement.
Delete per nom for failing
WP:NFILM. The lowest bar in this guideline is that it," ... has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." No indication this is the case and it certainly doesn't meet any other criteria at WP:FILM.
Ifnord (
talk)
14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This isn't actually a film but a web series, so I don't think
WP:NFILM applies. Also, sources don't have to be reviews to be considered secondary coverage. The Crunchyroll article is covering the series' announcement, thus making it a secondary source based on the definition of such. The other articles are also covering the series.
Link20XX (
talk)
17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I still don't see why NFILM applies. I see the argument for NWEB but that is irrelevant because it clearly passes
WP:GNG with the sources provided above. Articles don't have to be reviews to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Crunchyroll, Natalie, Mantan Web and Amimate Times do have some content from primary sources, however they aren't just a copy-paste of the original announcement and add some background and other information on the series. I have no idea why Mantan web gives you a 404 error (works fine for me). An article sourcing partially to a press release does not make it a primary source. As for Animate Times, the article is not clearly labeled as a press release so I have no reason to believe it is such. But it's irrelevant anyway, the other sources are just fine.
Link20XX (
talk)
09:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails GNG as the coverage is not in-depth enough or independent enough to pass
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:NFILM which is our guideline for this kind of content (it is the closest guideline for covering a streaming web series).
WP:NWEB is designed to cover other kinds of web content (blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals), and is meant to cover other kinds of content on the internet not covered elsewhere, not to subvert a more pertinent SNG.
4meter4 (
talk)
16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
At least from my experience, an article that covers just the series and nothing else that is also from a website with no connection to the original source qualifies as secondary and independent. Like I stated above, these are not copy-pastes of press releases.
Link20XX (
talk)
05:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
A magazine that discusses the mechanics of computer graphics, in this particular instance describing how the characters were drawn layer by layer. Hardly worth mentioning. scope_creepTalk18:09, 28 October 2021 (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.
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.
Delete--I am not convinced by the very thin coverage of this, and adding links to a retailer (like
Animate (retailer)) or to websites that aren't reliable secondary sources really just makes it worse. And one sentence in a Billboard interview, that's also not enough to keep.
Drmies (
talk)
01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't have a lot of faith in the conclusions drawn by that community, but either way--how does one sentence in an interview with Billboard help establish notability? And why in the world would a commercial outlet ever be an acceptable secondary source contributing to notability?
Drmies (
talk)
02:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment:Animate is a retailer, but their parent company of the same name also operates other business endeavors, such as owning
Libre, anime cafes, etc. Animate Times is just a website offering anime news that just happens to be owned by them.
lullabying (
talk)
22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment
The Yonkey Talks article is not a review, talks about the project from the creator and is primary.
The Crunchyroll ref is an announcement. It is not a review and is taken straight from the youtube channel annoucement. It is primary.
The Natalie reference is taken from the youtube channel as well. It is primary.
I can get to the Mantan ref as 403 forbidden.
The Animate Times is a press-release. An annoucement.
Delete per nom for failing
WP:NFILM. The lowest bar in this guideline is that it," ... has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." No indication this is the case and it certainly doesn't meet any other criteria at WP:FILM.
Ifnord (
talk)
14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
This isn't actually a film but a web series, so I don't think
WP:NFILM applies. Also, sources don't have to be reviews to be considered secondary coverage. The Crunchyroll article is covering the series' announcement, thus making it a secondary source based on the definition of such. The other articles are also covering the series.
Link20XX (
talk)
17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I still don't see why NFILM applies. I see the argument for NWEB but that is irrelevant because it clearly passes
WP:GNG with the sources provided above. Articles don't have to be reviews to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Crunchyroll, Natalie, Mantan Web and Amimate Times do have some content from primary sources, however they aren't just a copy-paste of the original announcement and add some background and other information on the series. I have no idea why Mantan web gives you a 404 error (works fine for me). An article sourcing partially to a press release does not make it a primary source. As for Animate Times, the article is not clearly labeled as a press release so I have no reason to believe it is such. But it's irrelevant anyway, the other sources are just fine.
Link20XX (
talk)
09:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails GNG as the coverage is not in-depth enough or independent enough to pass
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:NFILM which is our guideline for this kind of content (it is the closest guideline for covering a streaming web series).
WP:NWEB is designed to cover other kinds of web content (blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals), and is meant to cover other kinds of content on the internet not covered elsewhere, not to subvert a more pertinent SNG.
4meter4 (
talk)
16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
At least from my experience, an article that covers just the series and nothing else that is also from a website with no connection to the original source qualifies as secondary and independent. Like I stated above, these are not copy-pastes of press releases.
Link20XX (
talk)
05:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply
A magazine that discusses the mechanics of computer graphics, in this particular instance describing how the characters were drawn layer by layer. Hardly worth mentioning. scope_creepTalk18:09, 28 October 2021 (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.