Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artiswitch

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. The Delete comments, apart from being in the majority, appear to reflect better the quality of the sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artiswitch

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:NFILM. scope_creep^Talk 01:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Series has found coverage on Anime News Network, Billboard (article), Crunchyroll (article), and Natalie (article). lullabying (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lullabying. This anime also has some coverage in Mainichi Shimbun's Mantan Web (link) and Animate Times (link). Link20XX (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- All the sources myself and Lullabying have listed are from sources considered reliable by WP:ANIME/RS#Japanese after discussion(s). Link20XX (talk) 01:59, 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]
    - Alright so excluding the Billboard and Animate Times sources, links above have been given to Natalie, Anime News Network, and Mainichi Shimbun's Mantan Web website, none of which you have made any comment towards. Link20XX (talk) 02:15, 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.

None of these are a review, all of them very low quality. They are very very poor. Not of them is a review. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It does apply. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this is web content, WP:NWEB can also be used as notability criteria (this show probably doesn't meet it, but it's an option if more sources are found). Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I feel an ATD is possible here by either making an article on AsobiSystem then merging there, or merging to Harajuku#In popular culture if notability of AsobiSystem cannot be established. Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 19 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]
Comment: CG World magazine discusses the series' creation here. lullabying (talk) 23:59, 27 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_creep^Talk 18:09, 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.