Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Angel Escalayer


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Beat Angel Escalayer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A search for reliable sources turns up nothing. No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a review at Mania.com . Calathan (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also: Animetric ; ANN ... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources. Animetric is a self-published website that fails WP:SPS and the ANN Encyclpedia is open edited just like Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 23:36 19 May 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep-the anime series has been licensed outside of Japan, and there is a game series based on the anime (or vice-versa), so meets notability.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that meet any of the notability guidelines? Especially since both the anime and the game have not received significant coverage by reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There wouldn't be a point in having a custom search for reliable sources if people didn't find those sources listed reliable. If you don't believe something should be on that list, then discuss it at the reliable sources page, and have it removed.  If consensus supports it being on the list, it must be a notable website, so their reviews count.  Plenty of results.   D r e a m Focus  12:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked at what is listed in that search? It is full of torrent sites, forum posts, stores merely selling the title, sites like Animetric that already on the list of sites that aren't reliable sources (WP:ANIME/RS), and other things that are clearly not significant coverage from reliable sources.  Even the reliable sources in the hits aren't actually good hits, but things like a nearly-empty encylopedia entry without even a plot summary (Manga Sanctuary), or a review of another title that just mentions this title in passing (Anime News Network).  If you see anything in that search that you think is actually significant coverage from a reliable source, please point it out. Calathan (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Calathan, if you have a problem with my CSE please tell me. Before I posted my link here - and before I post CSE links anywhere - I did in fact go through the results and blacklist a couple dozen URLs. (I am aware of Animetric, but they seem to me to be like ANN's encyclopedia - a jumping off point that is not useless enough to be worth blacklisting.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:35 25 May 2010 (GMT)
 * What is showing up in that search has changed since I posted my above comment (I don't know if that is because Google changed something or because you did). I'm seeing less torrent sites and porn sites, though that doesn't necessarily mean that the remaining sites are reliable sources.  But regardless, Dream Focus seems to be treating it as if it is a list of sources considered reliable, while instead it seems to include all sites that haven't specifically been excluded as unreliable.  Personally, I think it would be more useful if you just limited it to sites that are known to be reliable (i.e. at WP:ANIME/RS). Calathan (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Search results are always changing; rankings for obscure searches can (I think) change just by people searching and clicking on certain hits. Who knows why it changed. (I did another sweep just now and have gotten rid of all the bad hits; for now.)
 * I'd prefer not to limit to just ANIME/RS. (I'm not even sure whether I can do that with CSE.) If that very short list of good sites turns up nothing, then a broader search is called for. Good sites get extra search points from being in the whitelist, and the blacklist gets rid of the worst dreck. If you think the hits aren't very good, then try a general Google search for 'Beat Angel Escalayer'!
 * If Dream Focus wants to rely heavily on CSE results, then I'd be glad to give him access, since I assume we generally agree on what goes on the blacklist and the whitelist, and he has enough sense to ask me/the project about grey sites. --Gwern (contribs) 01:46 25 May 2010 (GMT)
 * We need a new search thing then. Anyway, Google book search shows a result, it having coverage in The anime encyclopedia: a guide to Japanese animation since 1917‎ on Page 52.  This series was also released in French as well as English.   D r e a m Focus  13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that there has been some debate about The Anime Encyclopedia because it attempts to be a comprehensive directory of all anime. Directories are specifically excluded by WP:NOTE towards notability. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has more than just a brief directory mention. A bird encyclopedia might try to list every bird there is, but that doesn't make it less valid.  The Anime Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, not a simple directly.  And I find it unlike it list every single anime ever made, it skipping over some failed series that no one noticed, and just listing the successful ones.   D r e a m Focus  16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked this up in The Anime Encyclopedia, and its entry is extremely short. The entry also consists entirely of plot summary except for half a sentance saying that this anime is a rip-off of another anime.  While The Anime Encyclopedia gives some anime longer coverage that I would consider significant, in this case the entry seems to fall well short of what would be considered significant coverage.  While the anime encylopedia doesn't cover every anime ever made, it attempts to cover a very large percentage of them.  For entries such as this one that have no real content beyond a plot summary and a little production information, I don't think they meet the threshold of significant coverage required to show notability. Calathan (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How much could you actually say about something like this? There isn't a lot to talk about in this sort of thing, it not some run longing series with detailed character development, but instead just animated pornography.  The fact that they choose to mention it at all, shows its notable.   D r e a m Focus  06:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect I don't think this quite meets the notability requirements for an article, but it would be a valid search term, so it should probably be redirected to either the game studio or the animation studio. Calathan (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dark Diamond gives it a review. Seems like a notable site, with editorial overview, and professional reviewers, well established and all.  I don't see any comments about it on the reliable sources page though. A few other Wikipedia articles quote reviews from it.
 * 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.