Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advancer Tina


 * 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    merge to Green Bunny. Notability not established. &mdash; Sebastian 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Advancer Tina

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable pornographic anime with no coverage by reliable third party sources. Article was originally prodded back in February, then redirected to the studio, restored by and IP without any explanation, redirected back to the studio, then restored again by the same IP. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was released in the U.S. in volume 1 of a collection of titles from Kitty Media called "The Best of Kitty", so coverage might be under the name of the collection, and not the name of this individual anime. I found one review, and even though it isn't just about this anime but all three in that volume of Best of Kitty, I think it is enough coverage to count as non-trivial for the purpose of establishing notability.  If someone can find another good source, then I would say keep.  Otherwise, redirect back to the studio, since I don't see any problem with the redirect . . . the only problem is that someone keeps undoing it. Calathan (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the standard format of other anime and manga reviews by Mania.com, formally AnimeOnDVD.com, that one appears to be extremely trivial and would fail WP:NOTE. Also, past precedents has required at least two separate reviews when establishing notability. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is trival coverage. I'm not sure what you are saying about the standard format of their reviews . . . if you mean that their reviews are longer now than they were back when this one was written, then that is true, but I still think this is just long enough to count as non-trivial.  That the site has improved the quality of their reviews since this one was written doesn't mean that this review is insufficient to pass WP:NOTE.  And also I know that two reviews are usually required when establishing notability - that is exactly why I suggested another source is needed before I would vote to keep the article. Calathan (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three sentences, which is what the actual review ammounts to, is hardly what I would call a non-trivial review. In fact, three sentences is very trivial. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are only 3 sentances saying whether he liked or didn't like this anime, but there are a total of 8 paragraphs about either this anime or the release in general.  I don't see how you can say that the paragraphs about the disk in general don't count as part of the review.  I'm sure you would consider comments about the video quality, playback problems, etc. as part of the review for any title releases by itself.  Just because those comments apply to two other anime released on the same disk doesn't mean they do not apply to this anime. Calathan (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is not a comment about the the anime itself, then it's doesn't count towards the amount of coverage the anime has received. Beyond the basic plot description, only three sentences were about the anime. Everything else is inconsequential. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the anime's release is coverage of the anime. Would you really argue that coverage of a DVD being a best seller, or being banned in a country, or anything like that aren't coverage for proving notability because they aren't about the content of the film?  Just because this particular work has far more boring information about it (e.g. it didn't play in several video players), doesn't mean that isn't coverage.  I really don't see how you can argue that coverage of the DVD the film was released on isn't coverage of the anime, at least not for a work like this where it is one of the main things on the disk.  Regardless, the point is moot unless someone finds at least one more good source, as I don't think anyone would argue that the article should be kept based on this one review.  The more important issue is whether the article should be deleted outright as opposed to redirected again. Calathan (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If memory serves, this was originally released on VHS by itself, not as part of a collection, back in the early-to-mid 90s. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google has over 115,000 hits in English, and five thousand more in Japanese. It has been translated into Spanish, and Italian as well.  Are there any sites out there where animated pornography is reviewed, which are considered reliable sites?  Are we going to wipe out every single hentai article we come across?   D r e a m Focus  11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found one hentai review site that should be considered notable. Editorial process, only select reviewers there, not something just anyone can edit.    D r e a m Focus  11:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of WP:GHITS is irrelevant and does not denote notability. You've been told this a thousand time. Also Animetric.com has been discussed by the project and listed as an unreliable source. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that animetric.com was discussed (and I haven't been bringing it up in AfD discussions for that reason), but personally I would have said that Rowena Lim Lei's reviews from the site should be considered reliable sources. I visited the site regularly when she owned it, and I know its reviews were often cited by anime companies in press releases or on packaging of titles.  ANN has press releases by three different companies citing animetric's reviews, , .  Also, at least according to Rowena on the site itself, she was regularly sent anime to review by anime companies.  While I don't think she had any experience in the anime industry, I would have said being sent anime to review and being cited by anime companies makes someone a reliable source for reviews.  She is at least a professional writer according to her blog , though that writing has nothing to do with anime.
 * On the other hand, the current owner of animetric.com is clearly not a reliable source. He bought the site from Rowena after she no longer wanted to run it, and due to the site going through a long hiatus before she could find a buyer, no anime company seems to have paid any attention to it since it was bought (or at least I haven't seen its reviews cited anywhere since then).  Also, I think the current owner accepts user submitted reviews, which clearly shouldn't be considered reliable.  Older reviews not by Rowena also shouldn't be accepted, as she initially accepted user reviews when she started the site, but switched to only publishing her own reviews after a little while.  I would think the site at least deserves a wider discussion.  I would hardly consider a discussion where one person thought the site should be considered reliable and three thought it shouldn't to be definitive. Calathan (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is can your argumentation be convincing enough for any Good Article reviewer?
 * Another point is one review isn't enough to assert notability due partly to POV & weight issue. You just can't write something balanced with just one opinion. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinions of a Good Article reviewer have nothing to do with whether an article should exist or not. Most of Wikipedia doesn't have the Good Article stat, nor do most people know what it is, or could care less about it.  Whether something is balanced or not, is not a reason to delete an article either.  It was notable enough to be reviewed in what was then a reliable source.  Same as being mentioned in a newspaper, even if that newspaper later was sold to someone who destroyed its credibility.  It counts as legitimate coverage.   D r e a m Focus  12:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Animetric.com is so weak in term of credibility that any thoughtful inquiry may end with its reviews removed from articles. Why should be given weight to Animetric reviews? Why should we given room for that website reviews in articles reception section? --KrebMarkt 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-published websites are a dime a dozen. WP:V gives a bases as to when it is appropriate to use a self published source. First is to establish if the the author is a expert on the topic. This is accomplished by looking to see if his or her work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The problem with press releases is that they are promotional in nature and their reliability is questionable. Companies have been known to select the most favorable quotes for their product or even twist quotes to make the more positive. The reliability and expertise of the reviewer isn't their concern beyond the reviewer's recognizably. See the discussion ANNCast podcast at approximately 52:40 about how companies have misused reviewer quotes in their promotional material. Because of these reasons, WP:ANIME decided that quotations used for the purposes of advertisement does not adhere to the "previously been published by reliable third-party publications" standard set by WP:V. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can definitely understand that arguement. However, I don't really see how the reviews from animetric.com are any different than those from AnimeOnDVD.com before it was bought by Mania.  My understanding was that Chris Beveridge is considered an expert solely because he made a successful site reviewing anime, though maybe I am mistaken about that.  Before AnimeOnDVD.com was bought by Mania, were its reviews not considered a reliable source? Calathan (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether AnimeOnDVD was a self-published website, and did it have any editorial controls over its content are non sequiturs to this debate. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While this discussion of the reliability of animetric.com is tangental to this AfD discussion, I don't see how the arguement that AnimeOnDVD being considered reliable when it was a similar (though more successful) website to animetric.com is inappropriate for a discussion of animetric's reliability. Calathan (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least AnimeOnDVD has this, that and more. Comparatively search for Animetric return 4 hits in news category and not once it's the subject of the said news. On one news ANN mentions AnimeOnDVD's staff as "Our colleagues at AnimeOnDVD.com" that is a recognition as equal. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood. AnimeOnDVD is clearly a reliable source now.  Even for the reviews that Chris Beveridge wrote years ago (such as the one I linked to above in this AfD), I would consider those reliable as they are now backed by Mania.com (even though I'm doubtful that an editor went through and read all of the old reviews).  I was asking if AnimeOnDVD would have been considered a reliable source several years ago, with the point being that I think most people would have said yes, even though it had self-published reviews.  My arguement is that having self-published reviews doesn't necessarily make a site unreliable.  However, I understand that animetric is a significantly less notworthy site even than the AnimeOnDVD of several years ago (for example, Animefringe named AnimeOnDVD the top anime website back in 2003).  I was just trying to counter TheFarix's arguement that animetric should necessarily be considered unreliable since it is self-published.  If there is consensus that animetric isn't reliable, I won't keep argueing the issue (though I still feel like your original discussion didn't get much participation). Calathan (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether AnimeOnDVD would have passed WP:SPS in the past is completely irrelevant to whether Animetric passes WP:SPS in the present. So I don't see why you keep bring up this non sequitur arguement. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, now I think you are just being rude. All I was trying to do there was clarify for KrebMarkt that I didn't doubt AnimeOnDVD's reliability, since I got the impression that he thought I did doubt it.  Of course I had to restate what I had written before in order to try to make what I meant more clear to him, but that wasn't a further attempt to try to sway anyone to my arguments, merely an attempt to correct a misunderstanding I thought had occurred.  If you reread what I just wrote, I was actually conceding the point and saying that I wouldn't argue anymore for animetric to be considered a reliable source.  I was already kind of insulted when you called my argument a non sequitor the first time . . . I could understand if you said it was an unconvincing argument, but I don't see how comparing a potential source to another, more established source is out of place in this discussion.  However, I figured maybe you just didn't see where I was going with my argument.  This time, however, I can't think of any reasonable explanation for your comments, and find them quite rude. Calathan (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one who keeps trying to connect AnimeOnDVD's standing as a reliability source with Animetric. Two simply aren't related. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a single reliable source that reviews hentai? If not, are you going to try to mass delete all of the hentai articles?  The guidelines are suggestions on how to improve the Wikipedia, not an excuse to mass destroy large portions of it.   D r e a m Focus  16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AnimeOnDVD/Mania.com is definitely a reliable source, and they review a lot of hentai. Calathan (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: Looking at Google Books, I noticed that this series appears in an Italian dictionary of cartoon animation. Page 8 - Il Dizionario dei Cartoni Animati by Daniel Valentin Simion. ISBN 9791234567896 - I don't know if this helps the notability case, but I thought I would mention what I found about this.
 * It is also mentioned in Facets Movie Lover's Video Guide (1998), but I cannot find exactly what this says about Advancer Tina.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I still think that changing this back to a redirect to the studio is appropriate, since it seems like a valid search term and that seems like a reasonable target for a redirect. I don't think it is necessary to delete the article first in order to keep the redirect from being undone. Calathan (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.