Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AnimeNfo.com (2nd nomination)

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. east.718 at 00:30, December 23, 2007

AnimeNfo.com[edit]

Complete lack of reliable sources necessary to verify notability. It was previously nominated for deletion in April 2006, and has had no verifiable sources added since that time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly fails general notability test in WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I like the site alright and support its use in links on anime articles, it is not particularly notable. It may be a "fan favorite," but it doesn't have any industry support and I've never seen any reliable sources discussing it. Fails WP:WEB. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the tags on the article are justified, and even the external links in the article don't seem appropriate to establish notability. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:WEB. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the most well known anime databases. This article lacks references, but the site is notable. Just searching Wikipedia shows over a hundred articles referring to Animenfo. I added two sources to the article now, but I'm not really sure if they are reliable enough. Also, the actual article text still lacks citations. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's a useful site (I've used it in the past), but even if it's linked to a lot, that doesn't show that it meets WP:WEB or anything. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45 22 December 2007 (GMT)

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.