Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Cub (novel series)

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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cub (novel series)

[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)

No evidence of notability in the form of significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:GNG. No claims to meeting any of the specific criteria in WP:NBOOK, such as winning significant awards or being the subject of a substantial review in a reliable publication. No reviews cited at all. The only sources cited that are independent of the publisher or author are a number of brief blog posts at content-hungry sites like animenewsnetwork.com. e.g. [1][2] (the second one was the best source I could find, outside what's currently cited in the article), which consist entirely of a rehash of a product announcement or press release from the publisher, merely repeating claims for future plans or future projects, or restating a summary of the premise of the work. No evidence of actual journalism, independent reporting, or analysis typical of a real secondary source. It's fine to cite a few news blogs here and there in an article, but when that's all you've got, then the topic hasn't received enough coverage to meet the minimum guidelines for a stand-alone article. The announced plans for a film or TV adaptation doesn't meet WP:NFF because principal photography/animation has not commenced. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first volume of the novel was reviewed by The Asahi Shimbun (link). Series has been covered on websites such as Anime News Network, Dengeki (link), Natalie (link), and Animate (link), all of which are considered reliable per WP:ANIME/RS. With the anime adaptation coming, it's sure to receive even more coverage. lullabying (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting over a few hundred words? These sources are all exactly what I meant: rehashes of press releases by content hungry blogs, and one and only one capsule review. The first criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (books) emphasizes non-trivial coverage, and gives a detailed definition of what non-trivial means. The Asahi Shimbun review has only one sentence of actual criticism and commentary on the book itself, containing only two actual assertions: the book is charming, and the style is straightforward and simple. That's it. It is trivial. And even if this capsule review was somehow considered non-trivial, the minimum is two, not one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources used are considered reliable per WP:ANIME/RS. lullabying (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never suggested they were not reliable. I think I've repeated it enough times that it's clear the issue is trivial coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It can't be trivial if it's being covered in a wide variety of reliable sources in multiple languages. In my brief searching, I've found coverage in English, Japanese, and Portuguese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The notability criteria are not whatever you made up five minutes ago, and "being covered in a wide variety of reliable sources in multiple languages" isn't one. The languages aren't relevant. The depth of coverage is what matters. A hundred trivial, shallow blog posts in a hundred languages doesn't equal one in-depth, substantial review or report about the subject by a secondary source that has carried out actual research and reporting. Reading whatever is in the company's press release and paraphrasing it for a blog post is not real reporting. The criteria for what is non-trivial are explained in detail in the guidelines I referenced, WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. We routinely delete articles about products and aspiring public figures which have only received exactly the kinds of coverage that this rests on: lightweight newsblogs that churn out content based on press releases. When ever fact in the blog post is a 1 to 1 match with the most recent press release from the company, that is trivial coverage from trivial sources. Newsblogs may also be capable of real journalism, real criticism and commentary, but we have seen none of that here. The Asahi Shimbun is a major newspaper but major newspapers include trivial blurbs on trivial subjects. On any other subject, deleting this article would be a slam dunk, because the lack of serous coverage is obvious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources I linked you are not "content-hungry blogs"; they're reliable news sites used by WP:ANIME and WP:JAPAN. Even checking Natalie there have been several articles talking about the comic version and the upcoming anime. lullabying (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Now you're simply making no sense. WP:NBOOK is only there for cases where something doesn't meet WP:GNG. It doesn't supersede it. If any topic meets WP:GNG, it's eligible for an article here. Period. And as I and others have pointed out, these "newsblogs" you are disparaging have been accepted (after much discussion, I might add) as reliable, third-party sources for news. Whether you personally like them or not is irrelevant. These sources have been vetted by community discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this meets WP:NFF since it has a release date (April 2021). I would be very surprised if an anime scheduled to air in 2 months has not begun principal production. Jumpytoo Talk 04:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe production never began and nobody cared enough to report it because it's not notable. We can't make assumptions; notability requires verifiable evidence. You're filling in the blanks based entirely on release dates attributed to nobody except to the company's own website, not to any independent reporting. We don't have third party secondary sources telling us any of this and that's the critical test that tells us something is notable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or maybe you are just speculating. They released key visuals to the public just two weeks ago. It's extremely unlikely for them to be doing things like that this close to release if they aren't going to release it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - They released. What you're telling me is a subject can be considered notable based entirely on press releases issued by the article's subject. What happend to the need for independent secondary sources? This is not even close to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who else is supposed to release information about an upcoming product? News reporters use press releases all the time as a basis for their articles. All. The. Time. The third-party, reliable sources cited in the article (and a few more are on the article talk page now) are reporting on information from the company. There is no requirement (and has never a requirement) that those reliable third-party sources have to use second-party sources as sources. That's simply absurd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Jumpytoo, it meets WP:NFF as it is covered by many websites. Setreis (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has an anime television series upcoming. That is what we generally consider enough notability for an article. Link20XX (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, so whether it meets anything else is irrelevant. It's received coverage in multiple languages (see my comments above) in multiple reliable sources, so definitely not trivial coverage. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 2 February 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.