Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man: Rise of Technovore (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 Keep. Mystipedian (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man: Rise of Technovore
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete as Not notable. Article has no major news outlet coverage and is solely based on animation/comic book sources, even the article at "The Asahi Shimbun from the website of Anime Anime Japan Ltd." thus isn't the direct source. Thus failing notability as the nutshell indicates: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, ..." Iron Man: Rise of Technovore had a section at Marvel Anime which was removed to the article despite point out that it was not notable in the discussion Spshu (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources presented at Talk:Marvel Anime in the discussion to split Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. As I mentioned there, Rottentomotoes.com lists reviews for Iron Man: Rise of Technovore, which I think constitute significant coverage.  Someone else there also linked to the following news coverage: Wired, Crunchyroll, Comic Book Resources, Comics Alliance, MTV.  In total, the coverage seems to me to easily pass the notability guidelines.  Spshu expressed opinions in the split discussion that reviews don't count as significant coverage and that sources focused on comic books and animation don't allow something to pass the notability guidelines (even if they are reliable).  I think both those notions are completely unsupported by the notability guidelines and by past precedent at AFD, and that Spshu's opinions on what should be considered notable are not at all in line with how Wikipedia actually works. Calathan (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reviews are not allowed unless "1. The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Also, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..." Only one might fit the criteria, but no review is even used by the article. Secondly, other sources are trivial coverage as they cover the trivial area of "geekdom" as they are biased towards that field.  Past precedents that occurred contrary to the WP:N should not be kept. Installing some other standard with out changing the guidelines makes it a "dog law" thus isn't fair to the parties involved. --Spshu (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. There are already 4 RS news sites being used in the article. I'm not sure what the nominator thinks "major news outlets" need to be, but in the field this article is in, Asahi Shimbun, IGN, ANN and Wired are all established and reliable websites for coverage in this field. Clearly it has wide coverage in reliable sources and is therefore notable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note WP:NNC indicates that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." So being just a reliable source does not meet the notability criteria. Specialized news sites are not the world at large and thus give routine coverage. Asahi Shumbun is not the original source as point out but Anime Anime Japan Ltd.  Noted at WP:N: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Spshu (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - This was already discussed at length (Talk:Marvel Anime) and enough reliable sources were presented. Raamin (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly why it was force here. You didn't have a consensus there at the talk page with 3 supporting your position (Calathan, Raamin, 174.93.163.194), 2 giving nonsense reasons (google hits, Rob Sinden & existing wlink/other article, Rtkat3) and 2 supporting keeping at Marvel Anime (Lord Sjones23, Spshu). There isn't enough main stream coverage, not just reliable sources. Spshu (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * DeleteSources establish that it exists, but not that it is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover a subject, like this case, show notability. Raamin (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No they do not. No in depth coverage, no actual reviews of content: simply a number of reiterations of a pre-release PR drive. Essentially just listings &c. Read the notability guidelines more carefully.TheLongTone (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No in depth coverage? Then what are these,, , , ? Pre-release PR?? Raamin (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Calathan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2014 (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.