Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Climax

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. I have withdrawn my nomination, two editors have voted keep and found sources to demonstrate borderline notability. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Climax[edit]

[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)

Previously deleted. Except for The Anime Encyclopedia, which is a RS that is SIGCOV, this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, WP:BEFORE reveals no more refs counting to notability. Russian version is no better, only having iffy press releases, including this. VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Couldn't find any reviews in a search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 11:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Keep Changing vote based on discussion below. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could an admin please provide us with the reviews in the version of the article deleted on May 30, 2021. According to the prod reasoning, the article had a review from Okazu (though it noted the review was brief) and Mania, the latter of which is a reliable source for staff-written articles (WP:ANIME/RS). Link20XX (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I found them myself [1], [2]. Both, especially the first of the two, seem to be significant coverage. When combined with the The Anime Encyclopedia source, it seems to meet WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: I concur that these reviews are SIGCOV. However, I'm uncertain if these are RS. The Mania one has inconclusive reliability on WP:VG/RS, and I couldn't find discussions about the reliability of Okazu, though it's marked as a blog, but I'm also unfamiliar with the latter. If these two are indeed RS based on discussions I didn't find, please ping me. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Mania has had a consensus at WP:ANIME/RS for reliability for quite awhile as its editor-in-chief, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network [3] and Right Stuf [4]; he was also a guest of honor at Anime Boston [5]. As for the other source, while it is a blog, it is written by Erica Friedman, whom is considered to be a reliable individual per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga. Link20XX (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply! Though, I've seen WP:ANIME/RS and it's been situational since 2009, almost when the ANIMERS page was created. Hmmm... am I missing something? VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mania's reliability has been brought up a few times at RS/N (1, 2, 3, 4, and each time it has come to the conclusion that the website is reliable or been used as a reliable source to compare to another source. The situational listing is because it has a fan-submission section called Maniacs, which is run by uncredited individuals with little editorial control. The rest of the website, however, was run by paid staff and has been established to be reliable. As for the listing on WP:VGRS#Inconclusive discussions, I notice that section also lists Behind the Voice Actors, despite a recent RfC considering that source to be reliable (see WP:RSP), so perhaps that section is out of date. Link20XX (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Upon a further look, the actual Okazu review excluding the footnotes is 150 words, borderline meeting SIGCOV. I think this is borderline notable now and am neutral about deletion, Donaldd23, do you think the new refs show borderline notability? If you concur with Link20XX I might withdraw the AfD. VickKiang (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2022 (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.