Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood royale (hentai)


 * 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Blood royale (hentai)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable pornographic direct to video anime series. Only one review by a reliable source can be found, however, this does not constitute "significant coverage" as outlined by WP:NOTE. Previously prodded but was disputed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged this with prod several days ago but didn't notice it'd been removed; thanks to TheFarix for picking up my slack. As I wrote back then, there's no evidence of notability here. WP:NF has a number of criteria for notability of films, but none are met here – definitely not "the film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." There are plenty of Google hits of course, but, well, this is pornographic.... I note that the article's sole external link is to an Imdb entry. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - reviews:,  159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Monstersatplay.com is a self published source and fails WP:RS. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there ever any discussion about this? I read through WP:SELFPUBLISH and it doesn't say that all self published things are not considered reliable, giving specific examples of what and what isn't.  Many websites such as Ain't It Cool News are self published, and allowed.  I see nothing wrong with Monsters at Play being used as a reliable source.   D r e a m Focus  20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For a self-publish source to be considered reliable, it must be established whether the source is produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Since the authors of Monstersatplay.com haven't been established as experts on the topic, they can't be used as sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a rule listed somewhere, or just your personal opinion? There is no such thing as an established expert.  If a major newspaper hires someone to review things for them, they are considered an expert, and everything they pick to comment on is considered notable by that ridiculous Wikipedia guideline.  If a reviewing website like this has as many readers as a newspaper or magazine or news show does, then there is no reason it shouldn't count as being just as valid.   D r e a m Focus  03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The mania review proves notable coverage, it counted as a reliable source back when that article was published.  D r e a m Focus  20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Single review is not enough to make it notable. Without actual significant coverage, it fails WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another Review - 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Animetric.com has already been declared an unreliable source as it is a self-published website by a person who is not a vetted industry expert. See the project discussion for details. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 37 articles use Animetric in their reception section. That's 37 editors probably who consider it notable enough to use in those articles.  The discussion you refer to  has TheFarix and Collectonian agreeing with each other that it wasn't reliable, with one other editor participating who disagreed with you and said that it was.  Just because the two of you don't believe something should be considered a reliable source, doesn't mean everyone else will agree with you, and stop using it as one.  It looks quite reliable to me, and the reason given for it not being is not valid at all.  You don't become reliable only after someone in the mainstream news media mentions you.   D r e a m Focus  03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Without checking the edit histories of those articles, there's no telling how many different accounts added it as a source; I'd guess less than 37, and in any case citing to other articles is not a good argument (conversely, the case could be made that it should be deleted as a source from all those articles). Anyhow, the key points of RS are (1) "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" and (2) that they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  It may be a perfectly good site for anime fans, but for an encyclopedia to use it, it needs to meet certain criteria, and it doesn't appear to do that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone doubt its facts and reliability? I continued the discussion, mentioning a major retailer that quotes from it, and whatnot, at .  Hentai, and manga and Anime in general, don't get reviewed in many places, and in most cases never get reviewed anywhere at all, especially if they weren't released officially into English.   D r e a m Focus  04:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question of doubting them - even the most amateur movie reviewers are going to probably get the facts of the plot and movie credits right - but a question of whether they rise to the standards required. "Reliable" as it is used in RS is not the dictionary definition of the word reliable but Wikipedia jargon that means something more particular.  Not sure that a retailer citing them counts for much; many retailers are going to (1) cite positive reviews to sell product, regardless of who wrote them (I've seen IMDb user comments on DVD boxes!), or (2) copy reviewers' plot summaries so they don't have to pay somebody to write them for their own site.  The online anime magazine that ranked them that you mentioned is a little stronger evidence, though I don't know what others may make of it.  I did find they were mentioned in an article by Tehelka, but how far you could take that as to establishing them as an RS, I don't know.  "Hentai, and manga and Anime in general, don't get reviewed in many places, and in most cases never get reviewed anywhere at all": unfortunately, many would argue that that means they're not notable enough to have encyclopedia articles. :-(  I would guess there may be online foreign-language RS or offline print RS for this movie but you may need an expert to help find them. It might be less frustrating to work on improving or creating articles for which RS are more readily available. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject appears to lack significant coverage from reliable third party publications.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator states they have coverage in a reliable source but that that doesn't count as significant coverage.  WP:NOTE says
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."


 * Checking that link, I think it qualifies. There is no requirement for multiple sources when you have enough content in just that one.  Not saying the others aren't significant coverage from reliable sources as well, since they do seem to be, but for those obsessed with the guidelines, there is no rule anywhere saying you need more than one.   D r e a m Focus  07:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" - "sources'" not "a source", same as in the bit you quote above. Clearly intended to be plural and not stating that one source is enough. Further, the third bullet point explicitly calls for multiple sources. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non Notable, based on what im seeing I do not see potental in this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 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.