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. Article remains without significant WP:V or WP:RS at the time of closing, 8 days after this AfD nomination began. Pigman☿ 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MyAnimeList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:WEB. All but one of the "sources" fail WP:RS, with most being nothing more than personal blogs. No assertion of real notability per WP:WEB and WP:N. Note: previous AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin due to issues with the nominator, and as such the article is eligible to be nominated.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a completely unnotable piece of freeware software for exclusive use on the MyAnimeList website. Fails WP:N and seems to be little more than an advertisement:

MAL Updater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and added. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm not sure what the problem with verifiability here is. If it is about information regarding the history or other information, the sources for these can be considered WP:SELFPUB, and if not enough then archive.org sources can be added as necessary. Kei-clone (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The website received one piece of minor coverage. That is not sufficient for WP:WEB. As for the assertion of IDONTLIKEIT, I'm the nominator, not Iamblssed. I've spent nearly $500 on anime and manga this month alone and run my own anime/manga review blog, but I agree with Iamblssed though not its particularly application here as the issue is that its a non-notable website, not that its an anime website. There are few anime websites that meet WP:WEB. AnimeNFO couldn't even meet it, and its been around longer than this site and is far more well known amongst anime fans. The number of deletion attempts is irrelevant. Speedy is intended for quick and obvious, and an admin declined with the note to take it to AfD if desired as assertion was claimed (not necessarily validated). The first AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin because the nomination was done by a new user who was AfDing a bunch of stuff seemingly random, thus invalidating that AfD. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I never said you weren't the nominator...? That information is available to anyone who can read, right at the top of the AfD. The IDONTLIKEIT was to his assertion that it should be deleted because it is an anime-related site. Also, I never said anything about the previous. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here. Celarnor Talk to me 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: sorry, that was a double reply to both you and Kei-Clone. I also wanted to clarify the IDONTLIKEIT since it was made as a comment to the nom and not to Iamblssed Delete. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Longevity in this case has nothing to do with legitimacy. The fact that animeNfo is more "well known" is a debatable claim, and animenfo's fame is certainly helped by its age. However in terms of how much attention from the internet the sites get, MyAnimeList is on par with and recently even beats out animenfo despite MAL's newcomer status [1]. Not that the aforementioned particularly has very much to do with what's being discussed, but the point here is that the analogy to animeNfo here somehow declaring MAL less deserving of a wikipedia article is invalid. Kei-clone (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage doesn't mean one publication talks about it. Significant coverage means multiple reliable sources have discussed this site. Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply On the contrary, according to WP:N:

    "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]

    Mentions nothing about the number of sources. Kei-clone (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now you're picking over semantics... how about we consider the larger issue at hand? According to WP:N, the criteria

    "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

So let's really consider the source at hand here. The source listed isn't just some random mention of the article and what it does, it is pretty much making a statement that this website is more than just "notable", it is among the "Best of the Web". If you take that into account, as well as MyAnimeList's very common use as a method to display someone's list all over the anime community (look on popular anime forums, I will provide links upon request), it is pretty clear that we are indeed dealing with something notable here. Kei-clone (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. A single mention in one magazine does not make it notable at all. If it were "clearly notable" then we wouldn't be here. As for the ability to dosplay someone's anime list and being popular, your point? DVD Aficionado is far more popular for the same function, having been around much longer, and from my experiences it is still the more popular tool used in popular anime forums. Note it also has no article. Either way, popularity doesn't equal automatic notability. As per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEB it must be verifiable and covered in multiple substantive sources to be considered a notable website. One source does not mean we presume its notable. In two days of discussion, no one has to find even one more reliable source that shows any possible notability. It doesn't have the notability of being industry supported like AnimeOnDVD.com (which also has no article though it very easily meets WP:WEB and WP:N, nor is it industry supported with significant coverage like Anime News Network. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going back and forth repeating a lot of the same points. In any case, I feel there are a lot of issues being dealt with right now, so I will break this down:
  • DVD Aficionado: I don't know what forums you've been to but that's not something I can really argue with. My experience obviously says otherwise. What I can show you, however, is numbers, and with these numbers I don't see how that can be more popular than MAL.
  • AnimeOnDVD: I refer you to WP:OSE
  • WP:V: I have already dealt with this issue in my reply to Farix above.
  • WP:WEB: Site meets criteria 2, since it has won an "award" from a well-known (to those interested in Japan that is) and independent publisher
  • WP:N: Nowhere on this entire page does it explicitly state that multiple sources are required, and to imply that simply because a plural form is used is erroneous, because the page merely states

    Multiple sources are generally preferred.

    Therefore you can't simply cite the fact that it has only one source as its only rationale for deletion. Kei-clone (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we keep going back and forth and I guess in summary, I feel it does not meet WP:N nor WP:WEB and have yet to see any evidence otherwise, while you feel it does on the source of a single minor magazine mention and because you like it. Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no it doesn't. The first nomination was closed by a non-admin because the person who nominated it was basically a new editor on an AfD spree that invalidated the AfD. It has nothing to with IDONTLIKEIT or trying to get the result they want. The bad nomination simply called this page to the attention of other editors, one of whom (myself) renominated it under a proper reason. Please give specific evidence that this is notable per WP:WEB and WP:N. It is primarily sourced from the site itself, making it no better than an advertisement when almost no outside reliable sources exist except for the one magazine mention. Collectonian (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kei-clone already presented sufficient evidence. You remain entrenched in your view. I remain entrenched in my view that you do not like anime and related articles this site or it's article. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the laugh (even if you struck it out). My bank account probably wishes I didn't like anime (or worse, manga) :P I actually have no problems with the site, though I wouldn't use it personally because of the fansub section and its having no real content of value to me. I have my own databasing system for tracking all of my anime and manga. I, however, can look past my own love of anime and manga to look at the site neutrally, and I have yet to see any evidence that it meets Notability by high standards. Kei-clone points to the same article that was there when I nominated. By my reading of WP:WEB and WP:N a single magazine mention is not enough for notability. If it were, every local celebrity in the world would have an article because their 15 minutes of fame got them mentioned in a paper once or twice, or they won a local award. They don't, and I don't feel this particularly website is notable enough for one either. Neutrality requires one to be objective. Regardless of my personal feelings for a site, I only nominate them for AfD if I feel they do not have the necessary notability to meet WP:WEB and WP:N. I like, and love, many anime sites, but I also acknowledge that they do not need articles here as they are not notable. Conversely, I absolutely abhor Crunchyroll, but it is notable for making national news in getting venture capital for distributing illegal content and possible causing conflict between Japanese companies and their American distributors. Much as I hate that site, I would not support the deletion of an article on it (if someone created it and I'm suprised no one has) because it has considerable notability. MyAnimeList does not. Collectonian (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a list based on Meerkat Manor, not a standalone article. Besides that, it has notability on its own in that several of the meerkats have received coverage in major news outlets, particularly Flower upon her death. Most of the sources are from the show because it is a list about the show, however there is also extensive real world sourcing. Either way, if you want to compare, compare another website article, which has different notability guidelines than the characters/stars of an multi-award winning television series that has received wide-sweeping coverage (not just one little mention in one magazine section). Collectonian (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The software can also be used without a MyAnimeList account in offline mode, as it has a few specific functions for such purpose, such as tracking anime being watched in the user's computer, send the current playing information to mIRC and MSN, find and open next episode of current watching anime, find next episode in torrent websites; all of these features do NOT require an account in the mentioned website. Kotori (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) — Kotori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I'm not sure if community interest can really be a reason to keep an article. It might mean it's more likely to be worked on, and thus finding sources, but in itself isn't proof of anything. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability, MyAnimeList I feel passes. It's been "addressed in detail" by a reliable source. Saying that the source isn't reliable enough is putting a subjective spin on it.

Also, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This statement from WP:N doesn't apply to the article in question, as it does have a reliable third-party source. CanadaAotS (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have one reliable source to assert notability, and it hardly goes into the "significant" level of coverage WP:N stipulates. Moreover, the common interpretation and application of the notability guideline is that if something is really notable, then it should be able to express such notability through coverage by multiple sources. As far as we can see, this site was simply lucky enough to garner hardly a paragraph in that particular source, and we don't have articles on the rest of the mentioned websites either (save Anime News Network, which has asserted its notability adequately). Show multiple sources for the assertion of notability, or the article really shouldn't be kept. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hardly call a mention in an article that's titled "Best of Web" in an 18 year old publication "Lucky". I think we can all agree that MyAnimeList had to attract quite a bit of attention, present itself as quite a useful resource, and garner quite a bit of "notability" (at least in Japanzine's eyes, but apparently not enough notability for Wikipedia's eyes?) in order for it to garner such a mention. WP:N clearly states that multiple sources are preferred, and leaves it at that. Perhaps more sources are needed, but this can be fixed, and a deletion is hardly necessary when it's quite clear to many of those here that this site will only grow more notable with time.
  • I don't think it's really fair for you to throw out these rules (either do ________, or deletion!) or somehow tell us how WP:N should be interpreted. I realize you're an admin and all, but if WP:N doesn't reflect what you say, and what you say is correct, then perhaps WP:N should be modified! Kei-clone (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in Wikipedia's eyes is significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the topic. If the only mention this website is receiving is a lone paragraph in a single publication, then it isn't really notable. Yes, multiple sources are not required, but the brevity of the coverage in that particular source necessitates the need for more coverage. As for your claim of future notability, see WP:NTEMP. In any case, whether I'm administrator or not is irrelevant to the current process, as by voicing my opinion here, I've forfeited the ability to close this AfD. Administrators are not intrinsically "higher" than other editors; it is simply a user type with additional tools (naturally these tools require someone of particular competence, but the position itself conveys no special privileges in regards to user conduct). Anyways, the whole purpose of discussions here is to see whether these articles meet our policies and guidelines, and our interpretations and derivations of these aforementioned policies and guidelines are what we're all using in our arguments. If you want to change WP:N, then see WT:N. AfD is not a venue for changing policy. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is relevant to this AfD why? Please keep discussion pertinent to the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (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.
Category