Talk:Tear Studio

Proposed deletion

 * "Provided sources are nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE"

Are you suggesting saying the Anime News Network is not a notable or reliable website? If so, then see this.
 * "searching online I was unable to find any coverage in Japanese, and only brief mentions in English anime press that didn't rise to the level of significant coverage."

That's even more ridiculous. I would like to challenge you on whether you really have searched online because if you do have searched it, like searching its native name, I don't believe you would say something like that. Surely enough, the studio is not so commercialized as A-1 Pictures or J.C.Staff, but you will definitely find the company's news or information at least.

That's for WP:N. And for WP:V:

All contents are sourced and these sources are unquestionably reliable. Not to mention that these TV series are already aired. They are not speculation. Moreover, I added another four references to the page.

Last but not least, I think some of the admins should get rid of bureaucracy, because they are killing the motivations of those editors who are truly making contribution to the community instead of checking if a page should be deleted or not.

In summary, I removed the proposed deletion message. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , The issue isn't that the Anime News Network is not reliable, it's that the Anime News Network has said nothing of substance about the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 07:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "has said nothing of substance about the subject"? They serve as secondary sources to prove that the company made these series. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, which doesn't mean that they're significant coverage. See WP:ORGCRITE for the level of depth that is expected from sources about organizations and companies. The sources currently cited are reliable and are fine for backing up claims in the article, but they fall short of demonstrating that there's enough coverage to write a sufficiently informed, neutral article. signed,Rosguill talk 07:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's how animation studio pages serve for us. Most of animation-studio-related articles are all write in the same structure — Just a work list without substantive contents regarding the studio, because these pages are used to store information about the series they make. In other words, they are more like lists, but they are not lists as they are animation studio pages. I know what you mean, the page requires contents about the studio itself, but what I can do is just to create a section about its establishment. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I think there's a case to be made for IAR'ing notability guidelines here. I see another reviewer went ahead and approved the article, so I'm going to go ahead and defer to their judgment. signed,Rosguill talk 17:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)