Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haitai Nanafa

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. Technically the consensus is "weak keep" with most agreeing that though many of the sources are too poor to qualify, there is just sufficient to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haitai Nanafa

[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)

Subject is not notable; article is only one sentence and an Infobox. —ÐW^(T·C) 21:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Here are three reliable, independent sources that give the series in-depth coverage. Link20XX (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Found 2 more (1, 2), which are from AnimeNation and Ryūkyū Shimpō respectively, both of which are also reliable sources. Link20XX (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Link20XX, Those are sadly press releases or their rewrites, so they don't help much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: They aren't press releases. They were in the news section. Anime News Network files press releases in a separate section. The Fandom Post also doesn't do press releases at all. They are covering a press release. The article from Anime Nation is also sourced to the ANN article, so even if you want to call the ANN Articles press releases (which they are not), that one would count. Link20XX (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Link20XX, They are rewrites of press release or otherwise coverage of routine business operations (DVD releases). No real difference. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: There is a difference, Anime News Network/The Fandom Post is choosing to cover the events. WP:ROUTINE also only applies to events since it is part of WP:NEVENT, which this is not. Link20XX (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree. I actually read ANN often and I find a lot of their coverage is just press release reprints. Rewording them slightly is not 'covering the events'. Well, if it is, it is still such lowest denomnation journalism as to be of little use to us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the entire point to covering a press release just to re-share the information presented in it? As far as I am aware, anyway. And anyway, I found the original source, and it doesn't appear to be a re-wording at all other than the main information. Link20XX (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not invalidate the coverage. Opinions of it aside, they are independent, in-depth, and reliable coverage. Link20XX (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has enough sources to weakly meet WP:GNG, some additional sources:

"『マブヤー』に続け！沖縄発ご当地アニメ『はいたい七葉』が全国制覇を狙う!?". 日刊サイゾー (in Japanese). 2012-09-30. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
Clements, Jonathan; McCarthy, Helen (2015-02-09). The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation. Stone Bridge Press. ISBN978-1-61172-909-2.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an article being a stub is not a valid reason for a deletion, and as others have posted above, plenty of sources exist. matt91486 (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on sources by Jumpytoo, it's not great but seems to meet the bare minimum GNG requires (two independent sources noticed this and discussed it, if briefly). Ping me if those sources are challenged or better ones are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just squeaks by WP:SIGCOV per the sources cited by Jumpytoo.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: "Just squeaks by", I provided 5 sources that are independent, reliable, and in-depth. I explained to Piotrus above why they are such. Do I need to repeat it? Link20XX (talk) 21:40, 13 June 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.