Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anon Kanon


 * 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 redirect to List of Vocaloid products. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Anon Kanon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to List of Vocaloid products could suffice. Many of these Vocaloids should be redirected. czar 05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  czar  05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  05:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The List of Vocaloid products is in the process of being removed and merged with respected articles Vocaloid (software), Vocaloid 2, Vocaloid 3 and Vocaloid 4. This will occur at the end of the month, I am 1 person and can't do this all at once and ddespite asking for help to do this, no one has come forward to aid me.

Anon Kanon and all respective Vocaloid pages are being created and removal of said list page cannot occur until the information has been set up. If you check my contributions, and what I'v been doing, you will see I've been creating and expanding these pages. There is enough sources on the page for it to exist as it does now.

The whole thing is part of a project, either way, to better handle the situation. Anon Kanon are vocal synthesizing software for Vocaloid, have their own independent trademark and have no connection to video games' except that 1 iOS app, which exists independently of their actual software. They do NOT therefore comply to this and are instead comply with either Speech synthesis related articles and/or the music software, as they designed to be singing vocals for music. Therefore the basis of their delete being "Video games" is invalid and ridiculous and only shows ignorance on the one who nominated them, for they did not check what exactly they are nominating. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Vocaloid_products

Also I will add this. The reason the list is being retired is in the last past yer it was put up for deletion anyway based on the fact it was merely a list. So the current working process is to sort to get rid of the page. Redirecting the pages to said list either way is a step back at its removal. Furthermore, several vocaloids such as Macne Nana, while have Vocaloid technology behind them are not souly sold for Vocaloid. Mane Nana herself was made as a sound library for Reason and Garage Band DAW, later had a UTAU vocal and then became a Vocaloid. Others like Hatsune Miku and her fellow members of her series are so well known in Japan that you easily come across their merchandise. Even without the video game mislabeling, there is enough to warrant their pages existing, as only a few are stubs and many have large expansive information about them. I can understand why something like Pokemon may be attacked for this, but each "Vocaloid" is a separate software entirely. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Template_talk:Vocaloid

Here is another place I've discussed this.

Also... While I'm own the matter of reliable sources... I thin you'll find some of those said sources are in fact their own homepage... In fact going only the sources on there none of them are not official source for them. They either come directly from a legit twitter account about them, their own website, or Yamaha's Japanese website. They've got more reliable sources then some video game articles despite this being the accused reason to get rid of them! So between this and the fact their not video game characters, I can fully say *someone* didn't get this one right. I can think of other reasons why this page could be pulled up, mostly to do with house keeping reasons, but none for deletion based on how its been set up. Its not a stub either. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you can take up the connection with video games with whoever added that info and tag to the article. All I noted is that whatever connection it was supposed to have, it didn't show up in game sources. I explained this on my talk page already, but we don't host pages for which only primary sources exist. (As I said in the nomination, we require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) ) Topics with weak coverage are best addressed in a list (as redirects) or deleted altogether when we lack the secondary sources to write full articles on the subjects. czar  13:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect perhaps as there seem to be no serious needs for deletion and this seems best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister   talk  04:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep; I will not defend the article and have put forward everything already. I can ensure you deletion is not the way forward, but I know how this works due to past experience. If 3 people come in now who hate Vocaloid, the thing will be out-voted or that determined no matter how solid of an argument I can come up with, this article is gone if its worthy to go and no matter how much editing I do further will not save it.  this happened to me so many times in the past that it wasn't funny,even wen solid articles were edited.  So I will now walk away from the project regardless of its outcome. :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of Vocaloid products. Regardless of what medium this product actually is, the sources currently in the article are not adequate for providing notability through multiple independent sources. I think these separate vocaloid products would be best as a list on a single page. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I'd be fine with a redirect. czar  02:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My I make a suggestion, while I've walked away from the the Vocaloid pages, for that page to proper handle redirects, its needs some improvements; -Exchange the information on Vocaloid (software), Vocaloid 2, etc with the products list. Have the vocaloid informatin on the "products page" and the tables on V (S), V2, V3, etc pages instead. The problem with a redirect right now is the page is just a list and thats want I was trying to get rid of. That lists already been attaced once for being just a list so it need to be sorted. Plus its a horrible mess right now which is why I was trying to retire it. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively, just redirect this page to "Vocaloid 3" rather then the products list... And not change anything. Either way Czar's argument about it falling under the Video gaming guidelines is not 100% faithful to the discussion and I was happy that 1 other person here called that too. That makes me satisfied regardless of the result here. I do not feel its reason initially for being strikes against was fair and legit, it would be like filing a page for a dinosaur under deletion for not being a living creation, pardon the metaphoor here as sadly it was the first to come to mind. I knew sooner or later I was going to come into problems as I was doing these pages alone, this did not make me comfortable at all to edit any of the vocaloid pages as only 1 editor can reach X range of information and sources to back things up.  I would like to see the page returned in the future by a different editor; when the right one comes along. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ... again, no one has called this a video game. If the nomination wasn't "fair and legit", we would have sources for this article and would keep it. We don't. czar  11:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. A quick Google search does not bring up enough indepedent, reliable sources that would merit its own article. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:39, 12 April 2016 (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.