Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Saimoe Tournament

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. Continuation of merge/redirect discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Saimoe Tournament[edit]

Anime Saimoe Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An online forum competition to find the most popular anime, nothing to suggest its remotely notable, all the sources are first party. Prod was declined on the basis that the competion has an article on Anime News Network which itself seems to barely meet notability standards (and is also almost entirely first party ref'd Jac16888Talk 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. --E♴ (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ANN will cover anything remotely related to anime, so no additional notability can be inferred there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That's a very interesting reason to discount ANN coverage. I'll remember that in the future: 'Delete - the Wall Street Journal will cover anything remotely related to business.' 'Delete: Publisher's Weekly will cover anything remotely related to books.' --Gwern (contribs) 22:26 28 September 2010 (GMT)
As the tournament is covered by Anime News Network, the leading English-language anime news website, it is clearly more than just a one-in-a-billion forum game. Also, to reply to your comment on ANN in the deletion rational above, being a reliable source and being notable enough for an article are completely separate things. I don't know if Anime News Network is notable enough that it should have its own article, but it is certainly a reliable source, and has been accepted as such in many previous deletion discussions, as well as in featured article nominations. Contrary to what User:Starblind suggests, Anime News Network does not cover everything anime related, and coverage by Anime News Network shows some notability. However, coverage by only one reliable source does not show enough notability to justify an article. Furthermore, since Anime News Network is mainly just reporting the outcome of the tournament, I'm not sure it could be considered in-depth coverage. Unless in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources is found, the tournament doesn't meet WP:N and doesn't justify a standalone article. I don't know if the coverage is enough to justify including the tournament in the main moe article. Pehaps just a mention in that article would be appropriate, rather than the amount of coverage it has now. Calathan (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, per my above reply. The tournament doesn't have enough coverage to justify its own article. Calathan (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete Received some not in-depth coverage by the #1 anime website in the English speaking work that does carry some weight unless you are in full denial mode. However the coverage is limited and notability requires non trivial coverage from multiples reliable sources. --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has entries in 4 other languages. Either delete all 4 other language entry for this, or keep this articleMaglor1 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Existence on another language wikipedia is not justification for keeping an article, every language has different criteria for notability, and none of those other articles have any better sources--Jac16888Talk 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence in another language wikipedia must be considered for the following Wikipedia principle Wikipedia:Five_pillars  : It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The gazetteer aspect should allow talk of subjects that is of importance to a region. Let us also consider following case. Most people in Japan don't even know Bowl_Championship_Series or Super_Bowl exist. Why should they keep these two articles separate in Japanese article instead of merging them with article for American Football, and give it just a line or two? If you say Japanese Article should merge all American Football related articles into one article discussing American Football, then you are claiming there to be no uniform standard of Wikipedia for the entire world. Finally, Anime Saimoe Tournament has spawned at two international events, the Best_Moe_Tournament and Chinese Saimoe, both of which has received votes of more than ten thousand votes. I also challenge your statement of mere forum competition, as registration in a forum is not required to vote in Anime Saimoe Tournament, nor Best Moe Tournament.Maglor1 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please avoid such argumentation with your shallow understanding of Wikimedia. Each wiki community is entitled a total liberty to set their inclusions guidelines the way they saw fit per consensus. The fact that this article exists in other wikis doesn't matter. All matter is whatever this article provide sufficient elements to pass any English wikipedia relevant inclusion guidelines which is unfortunately not the case. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus are two wiki communities allowed to state contradicting statements? Can wiki article in one language claim 'Event A' happened, while the other language claim 'Event A' never happened or it is a fabricated lie? Maglor1 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing contradictory about one wiki choosing to include an article and a second wiki not choosing to include an article. The English Wikipedia, for example, allows fair use images - thousands upon thousands of them - while the German Wikipedia (and many others) flatly forbid fair use images. No one blinks an eye at such an enormous disparity in article quality because we respect communities' right to choose what content they carry. That other wikis carry the Saimoe article is somewhat informative, but far from a solid argument: it's basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Gwern (contribs) 18:31 25 September 2010 (GMT)
What if for 'Event A', B language article claims 'B people are the victims. C people are the murderers' , while C language article claims 'C people are the victims. B people are the murderers'? Both can claim plenty of research papers from their respective academic institutions to back up their claim. What should happen if, for the rest of the world, the majority's view differs from the view expressed in both B language article and C language article? The Korean version of this article indirectly went through deletion challenge by myself, when I contended that Best Moe Tournament article and Anime Saimoe Tournament article's notability should not be treated differently. http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AD%EC%A0%9C_%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0/%EC%B5%9C%EA%B3%A0_%EB%AA%A8%EC%97%90_%ED%86%A0%EB%84%88%EB%A8%BC%ED%8A%B8 . Shouldn't the fact that at least one group of wiki administrator found the Anime Saimoe Tournament article, and thus Best Moe Tournament article, valid for Wiki entry be considered for this discussion? Maglor1 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, that if i return our argumentation, i can also conclude that Best Moe Tournament should also be send to AfD. Then again you are showing your lack of experience of the English wikipedia and no desire to hear others indications. For information you argument is right on the spot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but you did not get a look at it don't you? Bottom line continues your argumentative seppuku by putting forward every single listed "bad arguments" usually found during AfD. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best Moe Tournament is not a Forum poll. I am troubled by you implying that you can consider Best Moe Tournament deletion merely from reading what I wrote. Visit Best Moe Tournament English Webpage yourself before making the claim, please.Maglor1 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also check 3 links to Japanese news article I have added to the Anime Saimoe Tournament and rule on whether they meet the standard on the reliable sources. Maglor1 (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As i don't read Japanese, i have neutrally asked for inputs others members of the anime/manga project to get a look at this one and the other. Let others see what your 3 links are worths. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see that the main concern here is notability. First, note that this whole contest is fan-based and anime-related. It is not sponsored by any anime corporations or the like. So the question becomes, how could something fan-based become notable enough? Reliable sources (third-party) for anime/manga "titles" are usually links to manga/anime sellers, such as this article. So for fan-based anime organizations, do they have to 'sell' something to be notable? I should think not. Now let's go back to 'reliable'. What would be a reliable source for a fan-based contest? Who would be considered 'experts' for saimoe? The fans are, or more specific, fan blogs. If you ask for blogs who follow Anime Saimoe Tournament from day to day, year to year, then we have plenty. They are definitely not traditional reliable sources, but they are logically the most reliable for the subject. If these arguments do not pass, then I would have to conclude that any fan-based activity, no matter how big, will never be notable enough, unless they put something on amazon.com or similar, or unless it is endorsed by an anime corporation (which makes it no longer fan-based). And third, forum-based competitions are not notable, I suspect, would be because of its narrow and concentrated platform. As mentioned before, no registration is needed to vote in Saimoe. But more importantly, the open forum is only used as a place to cast a ballot. Saimoe does not 'only' exist on 2chan but is followed in many anime communities around the world. So therefore, we cannot view Anime Saimoe Tournament as a forum-based competition, because it is does not have the restrictions of one. There is a site that keeps tracks of all saimoe information from its start until now. It is not a blog, rather a statistics site, and it is third-party. However, it is, like it should be, fan-based. It is indeed sad how that mere fact will keep the source from ever being reliable. KholdStare88 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Moe (slang)#Moe contests. There has been some minor coverage of the contest by reliable third-party sources, such as Anime News Network. But it is not enough to justify a stand-alone article. The Moe contests section itself should be trimmed to only included contests that have received some coverage by reliable third-party sources or are organized by a notable organizations. —Farix (t | c) 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, out of curiosity. How much weight (if any) does Sankaku carry in this discussion? 99.140.204.109 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a personal blog, not any. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My CSE results turn up no shortage of hits from sites already used as RSs. There are at least 2 articles just on the tournament from ANN - that's 2 N-providing from one of our most relied-upon RSs (Starblind's derision notwithstanding). There are 2 articles on it by japanator.com (another longstanding RS accepted by the Anime Wikiproject and used in >40 articles. There are ~2 articles by dannychoo.com (another RS, used in >20 articles). sgcafe.com has honored it with 3 or 4 articles. Gigazine.net seems to have even more articles focusing on Saimoe, and it too is accepted as a RS in ~30 articles here. Saimoe rankings, like Newtype or Animage poll rankings, are reported in a number of character articles, and mainstream media sources cite the Saimoe tournament; eg The Star twice. Google Books is close-mouthed, but there are 2 obvious hits in it for the tournament. Likely a LexisNexis search would turn up more hits.
And this is just the English Internet. As I think has already been pointed out, one would expect most of the sources to be in Japanese. --Gwern (contribs) 23:31 28 September 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep Gwern makes a very convincing case. Don't just dismiss something because it sounds ridiculous. Dream Focus 22:30, 29 September 2010 (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/Anime_Saimoe_Tournament&oldid=1137568243"