Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyAnimeList (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 delete. Article remains without significant WP:V or WP:RS at the time of closing, 8 days after this AfD nomination began. Pigman ☿ 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MyAnimeList
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:WEB. All but one of the "sources" fail WP:RS, with most being nothing more than personal blogs. No assertion of real notability per WP:WEB and WP:N. Note: previous AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin due to issues with the nominator, and as such the article is eligible to be nominated.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a completely unnotable piece of freeware software for exclusive use on the MyAnimeList website. Fails WP:N and seems to be little more than an advertisement:

Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I feel bad because someone has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to wikify and source the entry. However bottom line is I'm not sure if the sources meet wiki standards for notability and we already have something of a rep for focussing on anime, video games, etc to an obsessive extent and neglecting more real-world issues. Is there a list of anime websites or an article about otaku culture this could be merged with perhaps? Iamblessed (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability and the single award the website has won isn't well-known for it to pass WP:WEB. Other then the source referencing the award, all of the other sources fail WP:RS and WP:V. I would also suggest that MAL Updater be added to the AFD since it is a software program for use on this website. --Farix (Talk) 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and added. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure how 2nd nominations are handled with respect to the first nominations but there were other votes for Keep from the first nomination that were not related to issues with the nominator. Link's already provided here but just wanted to draw attention to those without repeating the same points from before. Should also note that this is the third time a deletion attempt has been made on this article (first time was a speedy deletion). Kei-clone (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This site has received coverage.  Simply because it is anime-related is not a good rationale for deletion, Iamblssed.  It smells of IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) 23:14, March 25, 2008
 * Comment One article isn't enough to pass WP:NOTE. And it still doesn't address the verifiability problems with the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not sure what the problem with verifiability here is. If it is about information regarding the history or other information, the sources for these can be considered WP:SELFPUB, and if not enough then archive.org sources can be added as necessary. Kei-clone (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The website received one piece of minor coverage. That is not sufficient for WP:WEB. As for the assertion of IDONTLIKEIT, I'm the nominator, not Iamblssed. I've spent nearly $500 on anime and manga this month alone and run my own anime/manga review blog, but I agree with Iamblssed though not its particularly application here as the issue is that its a non-notable website, not that its an anime website. There are few anime websites that meet WP:WEB. AnimeNFO couldn't even meet it, and its been around longer than this site and is far more well known amongst anime fans. The number of deletion attempts is irrelevant. Speedy is intended for quick and obvious, and an admin declined with the note to take it to AfD if desired as assertion was claimed (not necessarily validated). The first AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin because the nomination was done by a new user who was AfDing a bunch of stuff seemingly random, thus invalidating that AfD. Collectonian (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I never said you weren't the nominator...? That information is available to anyone who can read, right at the top of the AfD.  The IDONTLIKEIT was to his assertion that it should be deleted because it is an anime-related site.  Also, I never said anything about the previous.  I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here. Celarnor Talk to me  00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: sorry, that was a double reply to both you and Kei-Clone. I also wanted to clarify the IDONTLIKEIT since it was made as a comment to the nom and not to Iamblssed Delete. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Longevity in this case has nothing to do with legitimacy. The fact that animeNfo is more "well known" is a debatable claim, and animenfo's fame is certainly helped by its age. However in terms of how much attention from the internet the sites get, MyAnimeList is on par with and recently even beats out animenfo despite MAL's newcomer status . Not that the aforementioned particularly has very much to do with what's being discussed, but the point here is that the analogy to animeNfo here somehow declaring MAL less deserving of a wikipedia article is invalid. Kei-clone (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:N. Someone should keep a copy of the article text for a later date in the event of MAL becoming a lot more integral to online anime communities; as is right now, it's little more than a fansite and doesn't deserve the privilege of a Wikipedia article just yet. Terek (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Page has notability in the anime community with refferences from SJ as well as other community representing sources. Aokaado (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) — Aokaado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Your first edit is contributing to an AfD? Do you have other sources to show notability?  swa  q  15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:N. It is lacking sufficient evidence to prove notability.  swa  q  15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated and clarified the source in question. The article comes from Japanzine, a magazine 18 years in publication. Hopefully this should allow it to pass WP:WEB. As for the other criteria covered in WP:N, it qualifies for signifcant coverage since MAL received an entire paragraph discussing its features in detail, compared to other sites such as Anime News Network and Danny Choo, which had to share a paragraph. Japanzine is clearly a reliable source, and definitely independent of MAL. Are there any other criteria that need to be addressed? Kei-clone (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage doesn't mean one publication talks about it. Significant coverage means multiple reliable sources have discussed this site. Collectonian (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply On the contrary, according to WP:N: "'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 trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]" Mentions nothing about the number of sources. Kei-clone (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note sources as in plural, not a source. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now you're picking over semantics... how about we consider the larger issue at hand? According to WP:N, the criteria "'Presumed' means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable."
 * So let's really consider the source at hand here. The source listed isn't just some random mention of the article and what it does, it is pretty much making a statement that this website is more than just "notable", it is among the "Best of the Web". If you take that into account, as well as MyAnimeList's very common use as a method to display someone's list all over the anime community (look on popular anime forums, I will provide links upon request), it is pretty clear that we are indeed dealing with something notable here. Kei-clone (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. A single mention in one magazine does not make it notable at all. If it were "clearly notable" then we wouldn't be here. As for the ability to dosplay someone's anime list and being popular, your point? DVD Aficionado is far more popular for the same function, having been around much longer, and from my experiences it is still the more popular tool used in popular anime forums. Note it also has no article. Either way, popularity doesn't equal automatic notability. As per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:WEB it must be verifiable and covered in multiple substantive sources to be considered a notable website. One source does not mean we presume its notable. In two days of discussion, no one has to find even one more reliable source that shows any possible notability. It doesn't have the notability of being industry supported like AnimeOnDVD.com (which also has no article though it very easily meets WP:WEB and WP:N, nor is it industry supported with significant coverage like Anime News Network. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We keep going back and forth repeating a lot of the same points. In any case, I feel there are a lot of issues being dealt with right now, so I will break this down:
 * DVD Aficionado: I don't know what forums you've been to but that's not something I can really argue with. My experience obviously says otherwise. What I can show you, however, is numbers, and with these numbers I don't see how that can be more popular than MAL.
 * AnimeOnDVD: I refer you to WP:OSE
 * WP:V: I have already dealt with this issue in my reply to Farix above.
 * WP:WEB: Site meets criteria 2, since it has won an "award" from a well-known (to those interested in Japan that is) and independent publisher
 * WP:N: Nowhere on this entire page does it explicitly state that multiple sources are required, and to imply that simply because a plural form is used is erroneous, because the page merely states "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Therefore you can't simply cite the fact that it has only one source as its only rationale for deletion. Kei-clone (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we keep going back and forth and I guess in summary, I feel it does not meet WP:N nor WP:WEB and have yet to see any evidence otherwise, while you feel it does on the source of a single minor magazine mention and because you like it. Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, sourced, certainly should have an encyclopedia entry. The article is well written and the nearly immediate renomination for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to keep nominating until editors get the result they want.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no it doesn't. The first nomination was closed by a non-admin because the person who nominated it was basically a new editor on an AfD spree that invalidated the AfD. It has nothing to with IDONTLIKEIT or trying to get the result they want. The bad nomination simply called this page to the attention of other editors, one of whom (myself) renominated it under a proper reason. Please give specific evidence that this is notable per WP:WEB and WP:N. It is primarily sourced from the site itself, making it no better than an advertisement when almost no outside reliable sources exist except for the one magazine mention. Collectonian (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kei-clone already presented sufficient evidence. You remain entrenched in your view.  I remain entrenched in my view that you do not like anime and related articles this site or it's article.  Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh (even if you struck it out). My bank account probably wishes I didn't like anime (or worse, manga) :P I actually have no problems with the site, though I wouldn't use it personally because of the fansub section and its having no real content of value to me. I have my own databasing system for tracking all of my anime and manga. I, however, can look past my own love of anime and manga to look at the site neutrally, and I have yet to see any evidence that it meets Notability by high standards. Kei-clone points to the same article that was there when I nominated. By my reading of WP:WEB and WP:N a single magazine mention is not enough for notability. If it were, every local celebrity in the world would have an article because their 15 minutes of fame got them mentioned in a paper once or twice, or they won a local award. They don't, and I don't feel this particularly website is notable enough for one either. Neutrality requires one to be objective. Regardless of my personal feelings for a site, I only nominate them for AfD if I feel they do not have the necessary notability to meet WP:WEB and WP:N. I like, and love, many anime sites, but I also acknowledge that they do not need articles here as they are not notable. Conversely, I absolutely abhor Crunchyroll, but it is notable for making national news in getting venture capital for distributing illegal content and possible causing conflict between Japanese companies and their American distributors. Much as I hate that site, I would not support the deletion of an article on it (if someone created it and I'm suprised no one has) because it has considerable notability. MyAnimeList does not. Collectonian (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured striking would be better than deleting. List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a FL, yet it is sourced in the main by the program itsself.  The site has won an award, it has a mention in a reliable source, and it is well-travelled and considered important to many.  Again, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Meerkat Manor meerkats is a list based on Meerkat Manor, not a standalone article. Besides that, it has notability on its own in that several of the meerkats have received coverage in major news outlets, particularly Flower upon her death. Most of the sources are from the show because it is a list about the show, however there is also extensive real world sourcing. Either way, if you want to compare, compare another website article, which has different notability guidelines than the characters/stars of an multi-award winning television series that has received wide-sweeping coverage (not just one little mention in one magazine section). Collectonian (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again Collectonian, your entire paragraph is moot because of WP:OSE. I suggest you read it before you make more irrelevant arguments such as those. Kei-clone (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read it and I suggest you watch your tone. Collectonian (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sole applicable source for demonstrating notability hardly gives significant coverage. Rest of the sources fail WP:RS, and in the absence of other sources to assert notability, deletion is warranted per WP:WEB. I tend to believe that if the article is notable, more of such sources providing notability would be available. Also, to the warring parties above, tone down the rhetoric. There's no reason you can't express your opinions in a civil manner. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The software can also be used without a MyAnimeList account in offline mode, as it has a few specific functions for such purpose, such as tracking anime being watched in the user's computer, send the current playing information to mIRC and MSN, find and open next episode of current watching anime, find next episode in torrent websites; all of these features do NOT require an account in the mentioned website. Kotori (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) — Kotori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Funny thing is I've got an account there (hmm, need to update that..) but didn't notice we had an article for it. I'd be interested in seeing if we can find any more sources for it, since it is a nice little site. However, my first impression is that not a lot of people have really heard about it, and it seems unlikely that we have the sources needed. I'll poke around the internet and see if I can find anything, if not, oh well. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing to demonstrate notability through significant coverage in reliable sources but without prejudice to a future recreation of the article(s) should circumstances change. My own quick trawl for references has not been successful but I would consider reviewing my !vote should Ned dig anything up. nancy  (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there are a satisfactory number of sources for the website, and I feel it is notable enough to be on wikipedia. I do agree that there are not enough sources adhering to WP:RS.    Sintaku  Talk 11:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the sources given except for one fail WP:RS. And even the one that does pass WP:RS doesn't provide significant coverage to pass WP:NOTE. Your comments are more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as referenced article and sufficient community interest indicated above. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if community interest can really be a reason to keep an article. It might mean it's more likely to be worked on, and thus finding sources, but in itself isn't proof of anything. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As for notability, MyAnimeList I feel passes. It's been "addressed in detail" by a reliable source. Saying that the source isn't reliable enough is putting a subjective spin on it.
 * Keep - As of right now, the portion of the "Reception" section had all opinions of web bloggers, and their respective references as sources removed (by me). Obviously they do not pass WP:RS. I also believe that although the article does have it's issues (despite the removal I just spoke of, some portions of the article still feel a bit like an ad), I believe it can be fixed. My own writing skills are probably not up to the task to be honest.

Also, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This statement from WP:N doesn't apply to the article in question, as it does have a reliable third-party source. CanadaAotS (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In summary, the article's sole purpose is not to be an advertisement, it's to be an encyclopedic entry about a website called MyAnimeList. Yes, it currently has issues with sounding like an advertisement, but this is something that can be worked upon by editor's. It's the potential of an article that should be used to determine AfD rather then it's current state.


 * You have one reliable source to assert notability, and it hardly goes into the "significant" level of coverage WP:N stipulates. Moreover, the common interpretation and application of the notability guideline is that if something is really notable, then it should be able to express such notability through coverage by multiple sources. As far as we can see, this site was simply lucky enough to garner hardly a paragraph in that particular source, and we don't have articles on the rest of the mentioned websites either (save Anime News Network, which has asserted its notability adequately). Show multiple sources for the assertion of notability, or the article really shouldn't be kept. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call a mention in an article that's titled "Best of Web" in an 18 year old publication "Lucky". I think we can all agree that MyAnimeList had to attract quite a bit of attention, present itself as quite a useful resource, and garner quite a bit of "notability" (at least in Japanzine's eyes, but apparently not enough notability for Wikipedia's eyes?) in order for it to garner such a mention. WP:N clearly states that multiple sources are preferred, and leaves it at that. Perhaps more sources are needed, but this can be fixed, and a deletion is hardly necessary when it's quite clear to many of those here that this site will only grow more notable with time.


 * I don't think it's really fair for you to throw out these rules (either do ________, or deletion!) or somehow tell us how WP:N should be interpreted. I realize you're an admin and all, but if WP:N doesn't reflect what you say, and what you say is correct, then perhaps WP:N should be modified! Kei-clone (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability in Wikipedia's eyes is significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the topic. If the only mention this website is receiving is a lone paragraph in a single publication, then it isn't really notable. Yes, multiple sources are not required, but the brevity of the coverage in that particular source necessitates the need for more coverage. As for your claim of future notability, see WP:NTEMP. In any case, whether I'm administrator or not is irrelevant to the current process, as by voicing my opinion here, I've forfeited the ability to close this AfD. Administrators are not intrinsically "higher" than other editors; it is simply a user type with additional tools (naturally these tools require someone of particular competence, but the position itself conveys no special privileges in regards to user conduct). Anyways, the whole purpose of discussions here is to see whether these articles meet our policies and guidelines, and our interpretations and derivations of these aforementioned policies and guidelines are what we're all using in our arguments. If you want to change WP:N, then see WT:N. AfD is not a venue for changing policy. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the people at Wikipedia should focus more on the inaccuracies in their historical articles, as well as the areas which have needed "cleaning up" for over 2 years. Selective.yellow (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC) — Selective.yellow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Which is relevant to this AfD why? Please keep discussion pertinent to the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:31, 2 April 2008 (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.