Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milk Junkies


 * 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. As having only one RS. No prejudice to recreation if a second is found. Shimeru (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Milk Junkies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are no sources. Is this at all notable? I have no idea, but I thought I'd let the community decide. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominate it if you personally don't believe its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Anyway, looking through some of the results from a quick search I see that Mania.com has reviewed some of the episodes in this series.  Yep, its notable.  Really need a way to filter through these results better, eliminating sites that aren't considered reliable.   D r e a m Focus  01:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as Dream Focus pointed out, Mania.com has reviewed the series twice (well, reviewed two different releases in the series, but I digress). And, while I also agree about the need for better filtering in the custom Google search, it's already a fair bit better than a raw Google search. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 07:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Weak delete per Calathan and AnmaFinotera. I still maintain that the staff-written portions of Mania.com are RS, but am also willing to accept that two reviews on the same site might be considered one source. Had I not been vastly less involved with Wikipedia over the past ~8 months, I might have picked up on it in my original !vote, and possibly saved some of the discussion below from taking place. 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is mania.com a notable publication or reliable source? Currently it isn't covered in any Wikipedia article, which leads me to doubt it. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ANIME/RS. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite existing since 2007, this article has no references. Notability not established. Gobonobo  T C 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, notability *has* been established by the two Mania.com reviews pointed out above. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two reviews on a single fansite isn't enough to guarantee notability, in my book. Has MJ received any coverage in mainstream media sources? This article seems to me like it would be more at home on a specialized Wikia than on Wikipedia, since it doesn't appear to have attracted any attention from anyone outside of hardcore porn/anime fandom. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mania.com is not a "fansite", it is an anime and manga news aggregator on par with Anime News Network. See WP:ANIME/RS, which I directed you to above, but which you seem to have overlooked. If you really still have qualms about the reliability of Mania.com, I recommend you ask for more opinions at WT:ANIME. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "fansite", I meant a site geared specifically toward fans of anime. Sorry for the confusion, but what I said earlier still holds. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The way you articulate your argumentation and you choice of wording can lead other editors like i to suspect that you have a negative bias toward anime in general. Low culture is always what is not your center of interest. In the past, i wrote that i will not vote in hentai related AfD due to a my negative bias toward, so no vote again. --KrebMarkt 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What the heck? I merely said that this article is not of particular importance to the general population, only a small niche (and as a result is more suitable for Wikia than Wikipedia). I'd express the same opinion if someone were to create a separate article for one of the RuneScape skills, quests, NPCs, etc. (and I certainly don't have a negative bias toward RS, as I play it!). Quit inferring bias when there is none. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has room for all sorts of articles of interest only to small niches though. If it satisfies WP:N or one of the more specific notability guidelines, there's no reason to bar the topic from Wikipedia just because it might not have wide enough appeal. In the case of individual RS quests, skills, NPCs, etc., I would argue that if enough RSes have written about one (and it can be sufficiently argued to split it out from the main article), it is more than deserving of its own article. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 01:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still though, there has to be a limit. Even if a subject is of interest to a group of people and it has received substantial coverage, that still doesn't mean that it's an appropriate topic for a serious encyclopedia. See this afd for an example of an article about a topic that received quite a bit of attention, but still is not an appropriate topic for a serious encyclopedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Michelle Obama's arms will never be an appropriate topic for Wikipedia because anything which could be written about them would be better covered in her main article (and, indeed, looking at the deleted article, everything written there was ultimately trivial almost to the point that it was pointless to bother writing about it). This article, on the other hand, cannot be merged anywhere in a similar fashion, and contrary to your belief, pornographic anime series are easily encyclopedic topics, as long as they meet the notability requirements as this one does. It is also important to differentiate between a temporary flurry of media interest which quickly dies out (there is an essay floating around somewhere which I've seen a few times but haven't been able to find for a while now, which recommends against creating articles on subjects just because they are the story of the day in major newspapers) versus more long-term interest in reliable sources - the article you pointed out sounds like the former, while this one is definitely the latter. The more you argue against this article being inherently unencyclopedic because its topic is too esoteric and specialized, the more it sounds like you do have a bias against it, for whatever reason. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 06:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations in the article are both from mid-2007. That does not seem like "long-term interest" to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That remember me an old debate that occurred more than one year ago at WP:BK. --KrebMarkt 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love you to define general population in the context of Wikipedia which promotes diversity in readers, contributors and covered subjects with the reserve that the subjects meet any of our inclusions guideline.
 * If you want to avoid misunderstanding then be more careful with what you write. It's all matter on how your discourse is perceived. --KrebMarkt 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. No reliable sources cited in the article. None found on Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Nuujinn (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I'm changing to weak delete per arguments from Calathan -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you and MelanieN both ignoring the two Mania.com reviews linked from the article as well as the above discussion? 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dinoguy, please read WP:RS where it is defined what is meant by an "independent, reliable source." Specifically, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most websites do not qualify as reliable sources. A fan blog certainly doesn't. Why? Well, for one reason, it isn't published. For another, users are encouraged to "submit your own review" which means information published there may not be independent. If all you have to offer is two items at a blog-type website like mania.com, you do NOT have any reliable sources and the article does not meet Wikipedia criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will point you to WP:ANIME/RS (the third time I have linked that page in this discussion). Mania.com is not "a fan blog"; as I said above, it is an anime/manga news aggregator on par with Anime News Network. Fan reviews, which are not reliable, are kept clearly separate from staff reviews, which are - how to tell the difference is already noted on the project page I linked. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, please see my comments below. Mania.com has passed as a source in featured articles, which have particularly strict standards for reliable sources.  Also, Chris Beveridge is a professional reviewer of anime, and is one of the most prominent critical reviewers of anime. Calathan (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete First, I want to say that Mania.com is definitely a reliable source. Besides Anime News Network (which no longer reviews hentai), it is basically the gold standard for critical reviews of anime in English.  It has been accepted as a reliable source in featured articles (such as Madlax and Tokyo Mew Mew), and reviews from Mania.com are regularly cited in articles on anime and manga that have been released in English.  Furthermore, reviews from Mania.com are frequently given as reliable sources in AfD discussions for anime and manga articles, and have been used as a major reason for keeping many articles.  The article clearly now contains references to a reliable source with significant coverage of the topic, contrary to what MelainieN and Nuujinn claim.  All that being said, the coverage is only from a single source, and I feel that coverage from a single source is not sufficient to show that a topic is notable.  Though Mania.com chose to review two volumes of the series, WP:N says that multiple sources are generally expected and multiple sources by the same author or organization are generally treated as a single source.  So unless significant coverage from at least one additional reliable source besides Mania.com is found, I still think the article should be deleted.  I would support redirecting the article as a valid search term if there was any appropriate target for a redirect, but I couldn't find one myself. Calathan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to concur with Calathan, Mania.com is #2 website just after Anime News Network for anime review and Mania.com hentai reviewer Chris Beveridge built a repute for reviewing such show thus qualifying as an expert in this area. Saying that Mania.com reviews are not acceptable per Wikipedia standard is either acting out of ignorance or putting some full denial mode tantrum. Now i can't deny there is some skillful subliminal manipulation here, by writing that Mania.com is fansite so for fandom, it's implying that Mania.com is not reliable per Wikipedia standard even if it's untrue. This AfD will probably end up with the article deleted but in no way you will convince me or the WP:ANIME participants that Mania.com is not RS with such bullshit argumentation. --KrebMarkt 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources - mania.com reviews can essentially be written by anyone. Claritas § 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, these reviews aren't by anyone, but by Chris Beveridge who is the main editor for the anime/manga section of the Mania.com (which was formerly AnimeOnDVD.com before it merged with Mania.com). He is a professional reviewer with coverage in other reliable sources such as Anime News Network , and Anime Today , the podcast for The Right Stuf International.  Furthermore, reviews by him and others editors of Mania.com have been accepted as reliable sources in multiple featured articles and many good articles.  Quotes from his reviews have also often been placed on the packaging of anime DVDs by major U.S. anime companies like Funimation Entertainment and A.D. Vision. Calathan (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just like to weigh in, that like the other anime WP members here, I too accept Mania.com reviews as RSs and especially ones by Beveridge. --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 30 May 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep This has become a very muddled discussion. Mania.com's staff reviews have been RS for a while now; AfD is hardly the place to challenge that. Doceirias (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Agree with Calathan's well done summary. The Mania.com anime/manga reviews, as noted in at WP:ANIME/RS, are most certainly RS as that part of the site was formerly AnimeOnDVD.com, a long known expert in the industry. Chris Beveridge, former owner of AoD and now primary editor of the Mania.com anime/manga section is considered an industrcy expert, quoted by reliable sources, and is well known in the industry. The only reason the site nor he have an article is he is also a fairly private person so its difficult to say much more than that. AoD was vested as a reliable source long ago. When it was purchased by Mania and folded into the mix, that did not suddenly strip away its reliability. Its reviews are still reliable, as are the reviews and news the same staff continue writing. Yes, Mania does also host user-written reviews, but it is quite easy to differentiate the two, and these are staff written ones. All that said, if Mania is the only one to review the work, I can't really consider it notable. To me, the two Mania reviews alone count more as significant coverage in a single source, not two instances of significant coverage. If no one else has covered it, it still fails WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:26, 30 May 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.