Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistreated Bride
- 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. slakr\ talk / 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Mistreated Bride[edit]
- Mistreated Bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously PROD. Tag was subsequently removed without improvement. Article has only one source which is trivial and primary. Subject appears to lack WP:N and WP:BOOKS. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be unremarkable animated porn
without anywith little suggestion of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC) - Weak Keep: There are 4 Mania.com reviews about each episode of the anime (1, 2, 3, 4) and that it's been prohibited by Canadian Border Service Agency p15. MyAnimeList is unreliable as per project RS page and project discussion. Extremepro (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The mania.com reviews appear to be user-generated and therefore not reliable. Are there any reviews at all by any paid staff of any reliable sources?--Hobbes Goodyear (talk)- The mania.com reviews are not user submitted, but are by Chris Beveridge, who is a professional reviewer in the sense that he makes a living by reviewing anime and similar works (see WP:ANIME/RS#Situational for how to tell the user submitted reviews apart from the professional reviews on that site). He formerly reviewed anime on his website AnimeOnDVD.com, before selling the site to Mania.com. Even though the reviews were self-published, his reviews are generally considered reliable under the part of WP:SPS that says self-published content from experts can be considered reliable. This is because reviews of his were used in the Anime Today podcast by Right Stuf Inc., and because he has been interviewed by Anime News Network and has been a guest on their podcast (i.e., he has had reviews re-published by a reliable source, and is treated as an expert reviewer of anime by both the US anime industry and a professional anime news source). The reviews have been accepted in featured articles before as a reliable source, and are very widely used on Wikipedia in anime articles. Note though that four reviews by one person still only counts as one source, and the second source given by Extremepro does not seem to be in-depth coverage, so the sources are still fairly weak. The myanimelist.net source in the article is completely unreliable user-submitted content (though not in any way primary as Ad Orientem suggested . . . I'm not sure how he got that impression, as the site is obviously a fan site, not something connected to an anime company). There seems to be only one good source found, which probably isn't sufficient to keep the article. Calathan (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, I have adjusted my posts accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The mania.com reviews are not user submitted, but are by Chris Beveridge, who is a professional reviewer in the sense that he makes a living by reviewing anime and similar works (see WP:ANIME/RS#Situational for how to tell the user submitted reviews apart from the professional reviews on that site). He formerly reviewed anime on his website AnimeOnDVD.com, before selling the site to Mania.com. Even though the reviews were self-published, his reviews are generally considered reliable under the part of WP:SPS that says self-published content from experts can be considered reliable. This is because reviews of his were used in the Anime Today podcast by Right Stuf Inc., and because he has been interviewed by Anime News Network and has been a guest on their podcast (i.e., he has had reviews re-published by a reliable source, and is treated as an expert reviewer of anime by both the US anime industry and a professional anime news source). The reviews have been accepted in featured articles before as a reliable source, and are very widely used on Wikipedia in anime articles. Note though that four reviews by one person still only counts as one source, and the second source given by Extremepro does not seem to be in-depth coverage, so the sources are still fairly weak. The myanimelist.net source in the article is completely unreliable user-submitted content (though not in any way primary as Ad Orientem suggested . . . I'm not sure how he got that impression, as the site is obviously a fan site, not something connected to an anime company). There seems to be only one good source found, which probably isn't sufficient to keep the article. Calathan (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Per my comment above, I think one more good source would need to be found to show notability. Calathan (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- 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.