Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fencer of Minerva

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. While vote counting makes this look like a 5-1 keep, when you take into account that two keep votes are straight out of WP:AADD the other 3 are weak keeps, while the one delete asserts that it fails notability guidelines, it becomes a fairly clear no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fencer of Minerva[edit]

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

Fencer of Minerva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently restored PROD. I have searched and confirmed this exists and that's where the information stopped for me. This seems to be a case of WP:OR about a straight to DVD series that does not meet WP:GNG McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one to PROD this originally, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to add. Entirely unsourced, fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. o Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. o Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indecisive -- I think there probably could be an acceptable article on this, but that's not the current article, which consists almost entirely of unreferenced plot summaries and dramatis personae (more suitable to a fan wiki than Wikipedia). AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indecisive -- I would like to familiarize myself with the deletion policy, hear more discussion and see if there are other options. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There is the short review in this book: The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation from Stone Bridge Press by Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy. The book calls itself an encyclopedia, but it is not very famous (Scholar indicates zero citations...). And the entry, while going beyond a pure summary, doesn't strike me as serious scholarship (the tone and style reads like a newspaper or fanzine review, not scholarly at all). So it's a good start, if I say so myself, but I don't think this single entry in this low-tier "encyclopedia" (really, a summary of middling reviews, not a scholarly work) is sufficient to keep this. Nothing on Scholar. I couldn't find any review in anything remotely reliable. As usual, there may well be stuff in Japanese, but we need someone fluent in this language to do the search. Ping me if better sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this review from Mania. Link20XX (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are the same review by the same author so one is a reprint. Generally one review is not enough to pass the threshold of WP:NFILM or WP:SIGCOV but it helps if more could be found. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more searching, I found this Anime News Network article that is partially about it. Though between the one review, and the entry in The Anime Encyclopedia, I lean more to Weak Keep. Link20XX (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging for more sources. The last one is but a press release and so pretty useless. The first two, or one (copy) are from some old fanzine, although the review is actually much better written then the one I found "in reliable print source". Still, online fanzines are, well, fanzines. We are really scraping the barrel here. I'd really like to vote keep, but... sigh, still no Japanese reader to do any search for Japanese reviews? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JA wiki, IMDB, and the AnimeNewsNetwork wiki attributes the studio partially to J.C.Staff, which could be a valid redirect target, if a RS confirming that is found (for the record, I couldn't find one). Jumpytoo Talk 01:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be the article no one really wants to delete, but it appears available sourcing is weak. Relisting this to allow more time to locate substantial independent, reliable sources, as discussion indicates these "ought" to exist. Also extending discussion to explore alternatives to deletion such as MERGE or the most appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If proper sourcing cannot be found, perhaps it could be redirected to Central Park Media, since they distributed it? Link20XX (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comments above. The book mention is reliable but meh quality, then we have a fanzine/niche portal review of better quality. That's is grasping at the lowest GNG treshold, and maybe meeting it, maybe not... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and struck your previous Weak Delete just to not confuse things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:02, 14 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fencer_of_Minerva&oldid=1029073997"