Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyAnimeList (3rd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What third party coverage it has received is trivial and based on a press release when the website was purchased by another company. A matter that has no changed since the last AfD. Continues to fail WP:WEB and WP:N The article has had some serious WP:COI as it was created, recreated, and then re-recreated by someone affiliated with the website, Kei-clone. —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article has only been deleted and recreated once, not twice. Anyway, the Google Scholar link at the top of this AfD returns one hit [1], which has significant coverage of MyAnimeList. However, since the article in question looks like it is hosted at the author's personal website, it isn't clear to me if it is actually a reliable source (I would have thought everything in Google Scholar was a reliable source, but I don't really know). Some searching indicates that it was presented at a conference at a university in Macedonia [2], but I don't know whether or not that makes it a reliable source. Also, the article cites Wikipedia as a major source for its information for some parts of the article, which could be a problem even if it is a reliable source, though it looked to me that the information it was taking from Wikipedia wasn't for the part of the article on MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything on Google Scholar is not a reliable source, attestable by the fact that my personal writings from my personal website also appear there :-P Like most of Google's stuff, it doesn't really give info on how it decides what to index there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my impression was that this article wasn't a reliable source, since I can't find any explanation of why this person would be considered an expert on otaku culture (or any subject for that matter), other than that he was invited to speak at this conference. I'm going to say delete, as I don't think there is significant, reliable coverage of MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite its low cost purchase, the site continues to fail WP:WEB and WP:N. The only "coverage" is from its own press release and self-made publicity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article would be considered significant coverage, and there's also the academic paper (already pointed out above). The site was also listed as Best of the Web in 2008. The site clearly meets WP:WEB. as a Side note, it has an Alexa rating of 5709, which is pretty significant for the type of site it is. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaPost.com article is an elaboration of a press release, but one article isn't significant coverage. The "academic paper" appears have been someone's term paper as there is no evidence of being published in an academic journal, and is therefore not reliable. The SeekJapan's "Best of the Web" doesn't appear to be a well-known award and doesn't fullfill WP:WEB #2 (which is the only thing left). And finally, Alexa rankings have never taken as an indicator of notability. Popularity is not the same as notability. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaPost article is not just a press release; there are two of those linked from the article, and this is much more in-depth, including discussion with the CEO of the company which purchased the site. The paper was presented at an international symposium and is very unlikely be simply a term paper. Term papers are not generally (if ever) presented at international academic symposia. As for whether the proceedings of the symposium were collected into a published volume, I can't say, but papers presented at a symposium have to be submitted and approved ahead of time (I've helped run an international academic symposium for the last 20 years), so not just anyone can pop up and present at one. They have to be vetted ahead of time, so it would qualify as a reliable source regardless of whether it was subsequently published in a proceedings volume or another academic journal. The award and the Alexa ranking were just mentioned as asides (even though an Alexa ranking that high is likely going to indicate notability to some extent as sites don't become that popular without some notice by the press). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nihonjoe's findings, I found too that the website does have over 200,000 users (According to the Website Administrator) also per this link:[3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of users doesn't make a website notable. It is not included from WP:WEB as a criteria. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the absolute least notable website ever to show up at AFD, but I'm not convinced it passes WP:WEB, and the recurrent COI/SPAM issues don't exactly help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its Alexa rankings does hint at its notability. It has over 1.3 million hits when I search for its name on Google. That many people talking about it, and Alexa proving that massive number of people regularly go to it, make the website quite notable. Over 200,000 people have used their forum! I don't care what the constantly changing suggested guidelines say, since they were passed by a very small number of people, without the vast majority of Wikipedia editors ever noticing. Wikipedia is not a set of rules, you suppose to use common sense, that a founding principle. WP:IAR A website should be considered notable if a hell of a lot of people use it. Dream Focus 07:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you search for "myanimelist -site:myanimelist.net" (in other words, where "myanimelist" is mentioned on other websites, not on myanimelist.net itself) on Google, the hits drop by nearly 70%. "200,000" is the number of signed people once claimed by that website itself, unverified by external sources, and even that website no longer lists stats. Like Farix said, the number of users doesn't make a website notable, even if it is "a hell of a lot." 1-54-24 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, google hits and forum users do not count, and IAR is not some sort of magical wildcard. Try using your own common sense instead of suggesting reasons to keep that you know hold no weight to them in AFD. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some say the number of sales a bestselling book doesn't make it notable, and it should be deleted, but usually COMMON SENSE rules out over the suggested guidelines. See [4] for a good example of that. Some insist that even if a manga series has 15 million copies in print [5]] it isn't notable if you get no reviews and should be deleted, while others of course have sense to disagree. Websites are notable by the number of people that use them, not just because a couple of reviewers somewhere decided to mention them for whatever reason. The opinions of the millions who read something, is far more important than the opinions of a small number of people that review them. This bit of what I would consider common sense, does have weight in many AFDs, far more than the suggested guidelines for notability(suggested, because they are not binding, only suggestions on how to do things). Dream Focus 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember that we're not talking about the "opinions of the millions" in this case, but a claimed but unverified "200,000." 1-54-24 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reiterating a point from the previous AfD that seems to have been forgotten here (can't blame anyone really, previous AfD was full of tl;dr), but please be careful not to reduce the significance of the Best of the Web award, as it is not only an award by a 20 year old magazine, but it also contains an accompanying article that independently provides non-trivial coverage of MyAnimeList as one of its subjects. So even if a 20 year old magazine published both on and offline doesn't fulfill WP:WEB #2, it clearly fits WP:WEB #1. So to recap, for WP:WEB you have:

Coverage from a reliable magazine with editorial review
Media coverage that is not a mere press release
A presenation covering this subject that was presented at an International Conference hosted by New York University at Skopje, an event I'd find hard to believe would present papers not vetted by a scholarly community.

Will withhold my vote due to COI so it won't count anyway, but please take the above into consideration Kei-clone (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This " Best of the Web" listing keeps getting described here as an "award," except the article never calls it an award, even for the other websites listed (unless "takes the cake for nerdiest thing ever conceived" counts). Magazines do regular "Best such-and-such Websites" listings, but that doesn't make them awards. A paragraph, albeit entertainingly written, seems to fall under "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" that is one of WP:WEB #1's exceptions. 1-54-24 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder I couldn't find much information about New York University Skopje, the supposed site of the scholarly presentation. The website says it was only registered as a university in Macdeonia in 2005. Despite the name, it has nothing to do with New York University in New York. Bizarrely, there is a University of New York in Skopje that says it opened in 2005 in the same city. It's not related to the University of New York in New York either. Even more bizarrely, both New York University Skopje and University of New York in Skopje have the same phone number, (+38) 9220 34600.

University of New York in Skopje claims to offer an accredited degree with State University of New York (but not the University of New York). But the State University of New York's website doesn't mention "University of New York in Skopje" or "New York University Skopje." What is going on? 1-54-24 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 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.