Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime News Network (2nd 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The result was Withdrawn. Sources have been found to exist, I just searched for them wrong. Seems like no one has any reason for deleting the article now so closing. (non-admin closure) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network

AfDs for this article:

[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)

The first AfD nomination of this article, made in 2006, had a keep result primarily on the basis of WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:IKNOWIT. Looking at the page, the references currently listed are almost entirely WP:ABOUTSELF citations, which pose significant and obvious conflict of interest problems. In a WP:BEFORE (excluding self-coverage Google results with '-site:animenewsnetwork.com "anime news network" website'), I was hardly able to find any WP:SIGCOV, with the only particularly notable event being covered by other outlets being that they were acquired by Kadokawa Corporation last year. ([1] [2]) I'm not sure that this makes them independently notable. Nearly every other hit fails the requirement to "address the topic directly and in detail" when considered as a potential source, nearly always only mentioning them in the context of quoting what someone from the site said about a different topic.

If further sources evidencing notability are found, I'll readily close this discussion if the consensus leads there, but as it stands I'm not sure this is worth its own article (though perhaps it can be merged into Kadokawa Corporation). silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Anime and manga, and Websites. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about @Kunzite:'s comment in the first AfD regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, wouldn't that meet WP:WEB? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes, if it were included in the article. However, I don't see it mentioned nor sourced in the article, no secondary source was provided within the comment of the first AfD, and I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources covering that event. The one source that was provided in the AfD was a WP:PRIMARY source (from ANN itself) which I don't think clearly evidences that event's notability. If anyone finds a better source for that, I would probably agree that it proves the site to be notable. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am looking through past discussions regarding the matter and found out that the parent company of ANN also published Protoculture Addicts. They also hosted regular columns by Jason Thompson (Manga: The Complete Guide) as well as Mike Toole (formerly of AnimeJump). Here is a link to all of the discussions regarding ANN as a reliable source on Wikipedia: (Anime/Manga Project discussions: 1 2 3 4, RS/N discussions: 1 2). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not ANN is a reliable source (they are) is a completely separate question of if they are a notable source. I don't think that the outcomes and findings of the RS discussions are of relevance to the question of their notability. There are plenty of reliable publications which are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.

The Protoculture Addicts article meets the GNG more readily than this article does (by virtue of it not having eighty percent of its sources be itself) and I get the sense that the ANN article might be very well improved enough for me to support keeping if the information from the former were merged into the latter. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources for ANN: [3], [4], [5], [6]. The latter of these are "Digital Libraries: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities 9th International Conference on Asian Digial Libraries, ICADL 2006, Kyoto, Japan, November 27-30, 2006, Proceedings". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these. I think that these books seem like good sources at a glance, and probably enough for the topic to better pass notability. If no one else comments with a dissenting opinion within like a day or two, I'll probably withdraw this AfD and add those sources to the article. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 14:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4: To your credit, you looked hard for sources so I thank you for that too. In this case "ANN" is abbreviated in the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2023 (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.