Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoi House

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. Sandstein 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi House[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)

Does not meet standard notability guidelines. Web search found affiliated sites and fan sources. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. This is just a fanmade article, unsuitable for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a few news reports about it being licensed (which is odd considering it's English first place), I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search reveals at least two extensive reviews from Anime News Network and IGN. This is plenty to pass WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTE. The article does need to be cleaned up, but AFD is not for cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add FandomPost to the list of reviews. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN and Fandom Post articles appear promising, but I'm skeptical of Right Turn Only since it was discussed along with other series as opposed to a stand alone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the problem. To cite the notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Regards So Why 12:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is covered along with other titles should not be an issue. The section involving the review of Aoi House is very extensive and is in no way trivial. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article and expanded the reception section to include reviews from 4 different reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheFarix's sources. Three sources significantly covering the subject seems sufficient. Plus, there's also this IGN coverage from the article. Problems with the article's tone can be addressed by editing. Also, on a side note, what happened to WP:ATD? This could and should easily be merged to the author's article if stand-alone notability is found lacking. Regards So Why 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources prove it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources, including IGN, to note its notability. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:49, 21 June 2018 (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.