Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classroom Crisis


 * 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   speedy keep. Procedural close - No reason for deletion at all - I have no objections to this being renominated or moved to Draft. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Classroom Crisis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Undated  Jcpag2012  (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 02:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As I am the article's author, I will not make a !vote here. But nevertheless, have you read our notability guidelines, as well as precedents? Consensus has determined that anime that air on television are, for the most part, inherently notable. I apologize if the article was short when it was created; at the time of creation, there wasn't much info out on the anime (it had only been announced today, at the AnimeJapan event) and all we had to go by were unreliable FC2 posts and the show's website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The show now has received coverage from Anime News Network, which is considered to be a reliable source, and is arguably the most frequently used source by the anime WikiProject. Also, please elaborate on your nomination rationale: "Undated"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree on the notion that anime airing on Tv are inherently notable. For a start and in this case, it has only just been announced, and reporting on press releases and announcements is not considered proof of notability. I'm rather surprised that an experienced editor would create such a short stub immediately after an announcement when next to nothing is known about the series and it's not an adaptation. This is a case of an article being made way too early just for the sake of one existing, and I see no reason for it to exist right now. In the future, when something more is known than the key visual and a couple of names then yes, it may well prove to be notable. A few hours after a brief announcement is not that time.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I have seen some of our editors create articles on anime the day they're announced. has done so a few times, for example, and I had previously created articles on shows the day they were announced (notably Space Dandy and Shirobako). As for creating the article, yeah it probably was a bit premature, but I was thinking we probably have enough content to make even a smalls stub. And actually, that's the problem. The show is original, so inherently there won't be lots over coverage and info immediately. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that we don't like it when people make articles for manga that are actually running at the time with published volumes because of unproven notability, so why should we allow them for anime? Anime aren't suddenly more notable and worthy of articles than manga, and there tends to be more information available for those manga. It's rather hypocritical to give anime a free reign. The fact that it happens doesn't make it right. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historically (and this is coming from nearly 9 years on Wikipedia), creating articles on anime, even when they have very little information to them, have been allowed based on WP:OUTCOMES because presumably, they'll eventually have enough information to make them notable anyway, so deleting them now only to recreate them in the future is pointless. I'm not denying that this article is clearly underdeveloped, and I can agree that it may have been too early to create it, but more likely than not, this topic will have an article sometime in the near future that clearly establishes notability. The reason why this is not the case for manga is because, typically, a manga doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK, and WP:OUTCOMES doesn't apply to new, relatively unknown manga/novels.--  十  八  08:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay offers a rather basic view that doesn't account for the difference between an announcement and a show actually airing. The show doesn't even have an estimate for when it's due, just that it's in development, and presuming it will become notable seems does not only miss the point of the GNG, but also makes large assumption the article will be developed in the future - it can be difficult enough to do that with new shows that are notable. While I appreciate your view, I think the two are at odds, using an essay to justify keeping anime articles while using an actual guideline to justify deleting manga articles still comes off as hypocritical. However, even accepting your first point, this specific article really shouldn't exist at this time. I've got nothing against stubs themselves, but if all you can write is that something was announced, it's not a suitable topic for an article, regardless of it being a TV anime or not. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against userfying the article or moving it to the draft space for the time being until information related to its production and/or air date have been announced, and in the future, perhaps this can be the standard that we set the bar at. I cannot deny that you make a good point about the article not existing at this early stage in its development.--  十  八  09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article might be premature, but so is this AfD. I personally would have waited for a bit more information, but there is enough to justify a short article at this stage. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Draftspace per Juhachi, this might become notable but for now more work is needed on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (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.