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. Sandstein 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Comics Village

Comics Village (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG; I could not find notable coverage about this website. Article is also unsourced. lullabying ( talk) 05:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Neither could I. Likely self-promotion. Dark knight 2149 08:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Pending: Until WP:RSN determines if Comics Village is a reliable source. Dark knight 2149 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough in-depth sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this fails GNG and WP:NWEB Spiderone 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep — two main reasons to retain the article are, (1) at one point it seems to have been the main English-language site for reviews of manga, which can be seen in the manga articles that refer to Comics Village reviews ( Kaze Hikaru, Earl Cain, Stray Little Devil, Enchanter, Black God, Psycho Busters, B.O.D.Y., and on and on); and 2) I guess it made quite an impression on the comics community when it burst on the scene back in 2007, with its irreverence and rudeness. (Referenced in this story.) Otherwise, given that Comics Village was itself a news site, it's not terribly surprising that there's not much outside coverage of it by other news sites. I can certainly see that the site fails the usual definitions of notability, and I understand that Wikipedia is not a repository of dead links, but if sites like this that shone brightly for a brief period are not archived, then our history is left that much more diminished. -- stoshmaster ( talk) 17:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WP:ANIME/RS does not list it as a reliable source for reviews. lullabying ( talk) 20:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • For the record, Manga Village (part of Comics Village) is listed in WP:ANIME/RS. -- stoshmaster ( talk) 04:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • For the integrity of the nomination, I just opened an inquiry at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Comics_Village Dark knight 2149 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for checking, though whether the source is reliable or not doesn't relate to the article being notable. lullabying ( talk) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The idea that Comics Village was itself a news site, it's not terribly surprising that there's not much outside coverage of it by other news sites is exactly the reason WP:NMEDIA exists so let's consider that. Your first argument, that it was the main English-language site for reviews of manga, fits most closely with WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals clause 5 (significant publications in ... non-trivial niche markets) though clauses 3 and 4 also seem relevant. Your second point may meet clause 2 though this seems rather unlikely. My key objection to all of this is that all of these clauses must be met verifiably so you need to supply sources to make them. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 13:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Whether it's RS is irrelevant to the question of notability. I do not see evidence of GNG being met in this case, so I support deletion. ( t · c) buidhe 04:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Request please comment upon this reference from before the AfD [1] and this reference that Stoshmaster found [2]. Just saying for each of them 'not reliable', 'not significant', or 'not independent' will do. ~ El D. ( talk to me) 13:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • First link comes from what is now Comics Bulletin (active link here), which is reliable, but in this case not independent. It was posted by Craig Johnson, who was also writing a column for the new Comics Village site according to the post and several columns listed in an archive. Second link is really about the person Phill Hall rather than the site. It discusses something he wrote while there, but it's not really the point of the interview. - 2pou ( talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I tried very hard to find coverage for this site, as I always find it sad when an article on a reliable source gets deleted, but I could find nothing of note. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the sources in question do not satisfy the GNG. Etzedek24 ^{( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record)} 19:48, 29 December 2020 (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.