Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animenfo.com


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Animenfo.com
This is spam that fails WP:BIO WP:WEB. It was marked as speedy, which I removed because it doesn't qualify as a speedeletion candidate. I PRODded it, and the prod was removed with an overhaul of the article, but it still doesn't make it, IMO. JDoorj a m    Talk 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Forum looks busy enough, but without verifiable notability, non-notable enough to delete per WP:WEB. Google only shows one hit &uarr;. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * abstain. I defer to superior knowledge of the subject. Could still do with some sources and references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a correct link to a google search. It shows 562,000 hits for me. Beltz 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alexa rank: 14,019.  The fact that Google only shows one hit is likely because Google is directing the name to the most likely domain that matches.  "Animenfo.com" (note the quotes), however, will get you a 399K Ghits.  In any case, this is a significant and high-traffic otaku site.--み使い Mitsukai 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Along with Anime News Network's Encyclopedia and Anidb.info, AnimeNfo.com is one of the most referenced websites for anime information. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: can you dig up a reference or two for that? I think this article's biggest current weakness is a lack of cited, verifiable claims of notability. JDoorj a m     Talk 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * AnimeSuki almost always links to it to provide information about an anime series. When searching an anime title on Google, the page is usually the first or second real information or nonfan page listed along with ANN's Encyclopedia. A Google search for "AnimeNfo" excluding AnimeNfo.com results in 225,000 hits—compared to 228,000 for "AnimeSuki", 225,000 for "Anidb", and 27,210 for "Anime News Network Encyclopedia"/"ANN Encyclopedia". --TheFarix (Talk) 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per TheFarix and how is this supposed to meet WP:BIO? You can probably find some references in Newtype and such. Kotepho 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha, sorry. WP:WEB -- thanks. JDoorj a m     Talk 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheFarix. pfahlstrom 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per all keep comments above. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this website is very notable, and fits criterias parallel to that of imdb, gamespot or other important media database websites. Beltz 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have been dealing with anime and manga suppliers and references across the internet for the last $DEITY knows how long, and I had never heard of it until it popped up on here. Shows you how popular it is :)  In accordance with JDooram, I do remind you that even in its present condition, this article fails WP:WEB  Thor Malmjursson 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I've know of this site for ages and I'm always run across it when searching for information about an anime. Now it has gone through a redesign a few months ago (from the old blue and white to the current gray and black) and when I first saw the new layout, I thought it was an entirely different website. As for the current state of the article, everyone appears to be waiting for the results of this AfD before doing any more edits the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly sure. If you read the criteria for Web Content on WP:WEB, IMO at least, it does not match up to any of the 3 main criteria.  1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - 2:The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. - 3: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.  And on top of that, the article must prove that it matches one of those 3 criteria, which from what I can see, it hasn't done so.  Thor Malmjursson 12:07, 15 April 2006 (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.