Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Angel Escalayer (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Apart from the nominator (who nominated this for the previous Afd), the two 'delete's are both weak. There is no clear consensus here. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Beat Angel Escalayer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've attempted several times in the past to find a review or other reliable source for this pornographic anime, but I always come up empty. Fails WP:NOTE. Even AnimeOnDVD, now called Mania.com, which frequently does reviews for pornographic anime, hasn't even touched this one. (search) —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahem: Mania.com review, linked to in the previous AfD. Also, there's at least one other review linked there that should be checked for reliability (I can't at the moment because I'm behind corporate nanyware). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Same nominator sent this to AFD back in May, 4 months ago. I don't see as how anything has changed since then.  It has been reviewed at Dark Diamond, Animetric, and as I mentioned last time, The anime encyclopedia: a guide to Japanese animation since 1917 list it on Page 52.  It has been released in multiple languages, and there is even a game made about it.   D r e a m Focus  03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nither Animetric or Dark Diamond are reliable sources. They fail the standards for self-published sources We've already been over this before, but you still insist that anything published on the internet is a "reliable source". Animetric has been listed at WP:ANIME/RS as an unreliable source for well over a year now. The coverage by The Anime Encyclopedia was just to give a very short plot summary, which isn't significant coverage. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems significant to me. We had this discussion last time.  And the mania review, as mentioned in the previous AFD, as well as this one, is clearly notable.   D r e a m Focus  12:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A mere plot summary, no mater how detailed, is not significant coverage. It's extremely trivial coverage. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mania review is not mere plot summary -- it evaluates the story and the packaging/production. It's as much a significant coverage of the subject as any other review they do -- almost as much as a typical ANN review. (Agree that Animetric doesn't make the cut as a reliable source, but I want more information about Dark Diamond before dismissing it so quickly.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - This anime's review is available at Mania.com. Farix, please do a search there using the term "Escalayer". – allen四names 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm usually willing to assume Japanese-language reliable source coverage exists of anime and manga even if English reliable source coverage does not. But I'm not so sure that assumption extends to a porno that ran all of 3 episodes, however. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Same nominator 4 months later?? What has changed?? Nothing has changed! It has been reviewed several reliable sources, is in another encyclopedia, released in multiple languages, and there a game made about it. Go figure. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources? Where are the other reliable sources? And an entry in an "encyclopedia" that is merely a plot summary is not significant coverage. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (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.