Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Web Turnpike

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) Erik9 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Web Turnpike

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

Unnotable website that fails WP:WEB and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, only one or two minor hits in Google News[1] in general lists of anime sites. CSD removed by non-admin with note of "removed speedy, notability asserted, a Google News Archive search also returns a number of results - some may be substantial > take to WP:AFD if you wish to pursue deletion" however only 6 results actually returned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have said that the Anime Web Turnpike was the most prominent English language anime website about 10 years ago. There is significant coverage of it at Anime News Network, including an interview [2], various new stories ~~or press releases~~ about it (some admittedly very brief) ~~[3]~~, [4], [5], [6], [7], a statement that suggests Anime Fringe named it the top anime related web site in 2002 [8], a statement that Anime News Network was happy to win an award from them back in 1999 [9], a statement that at one point it was the only serious anime web site besides Anime News Network [10], etc. I know that some of those are just one line news articles or brief mentions in larger articles, but I think they make it clear that it was considered an important anime website back then. I haven't looked much for sources other than at ANN, but I would bet there is coverage in other reliable sources. Calathan (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not establish notability. Anyone can published a press release and generally find at least one reliable source to reprint it. There are very few actual news coverage about the site beyond its own promotional notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the nine links I provided was to a press release. Calathan (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the rest are significant coverage - many are just quick bits that seem like repeats of news posts from the site itself. While ANN is a reliable source, if it is the only one to actually cover the site, that really doesn't make Anime Web Turnpike anymore notable per WP:WEB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that interview long enough to count as "non-trivial" in the meaning of WP:N and WP:WEB. I'm not sure why you say it isn't. Here is another site with signficant coverage [11], though I don't know if that is a reliable source. Those are what I got from just the first page of Google, so again, I think there would be more sources. If you haven't tried looking for sources yourself, I would ask that you please do so. Also, I notice that the links at the top of the AfD give some hits from Google books and Google scholar (though I haven't looked at them in detail). Calathan (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is certainly non-trivial according to WP:WEB, though most, if not all, of the other links are trivial. The Backstage link [12] certainly establishes notability and seems like a reliable resource. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely on account of ignoring the rules. It's probably one of the more well known link farm sites in anime. I'm calling upon the IAR card though because anime fandom really isn't all that well covered in the usual reliable sources, making it difficult as per the spirit of ignoring the rules. Sure, cons are, but beyond that, it's pretty difficult. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR certainly has its functions but I don't think it's supposed to be used as a carte blanche for bailing out non-notable websites and the like. The WP:IKNOWIT argument is not particularly persuasive as well. — Rankiri (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is granted, but it's not something I can really avoid here given the circumstances. Mind you, if it really doesn't hold at the end of the discussion, I'm not gonna cry crocodile tears - especially because Anipike's function is more spread out in this day and age. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anipike was the major web portal for American anime fandom in the 90's. It ran into problems around 2000 or so, another company acquired and revamped it, and then it slowly faded into obscurity. (It's certainly not notable in its present form.) As with much early web history it's hard to find sources. A number of publications mention it (Google Books, Google Scholar), but most of these just cite Anipike as a source of information rather than discussing the site itself at length. It was featured in a third party documentary (which I thought I had but apparently don't); if anyone's got a bunch of old copies of Animerica, it might be worth combing through those for articles about Anipike. Sadly, this may be one of those things that's notable in the real world but not Wikipedia-notable; I hope I'm wrong.--Chris Johnson (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have about 10-15 old issues of Animerica and I've yet to see any mention of it. Is there a particular issue you are thinking of? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From a quick Google search there seems to be enough good information out there to satisfy WP:WEB if someone took the time to comb through the information available. In general it seems unusually difficult to find sources that satisfy Wikipedia's reliability criteria for websites that were popular in the late 1990's, even the most popular. I don't feel comfortable saying "Keep the article" since it hasn't been developed very much at all. I think the notability is there but I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is. Delete the article and then, later on, someone could develop a more mature article and put it back up? Would it be better, instead, to keep the article even though it doesn't currently cite reliable sources? Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The listing as a "must visit" site by both MacUser and Animefringe is enough to establish some basic notability. I view these as the equivalent of an award for websites. Unfortunately, do to circumstances, the article may never be what it should be. In part because the website has passed into obscurity. --Farix (Talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other editors have show, reliable sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2009 (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.