Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swallowtail Inn


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Swallowtail Inn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NN film. Findsources shows a fair number of g-hits but most are trivial. Unable to find substantial coverage in WP:RS. Related AFD: Articles for deletion/Ayana Sumoto closed as delete. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Two reliable sources that reviewed it are mentioned in the article now. I think Animenation counts as a reliable source as well, but I'm having trouble finding where the actual reviews of things are, and what blogs are considered notable reviewers.    D r e a m Focus  19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can filter results based not just on keyword but on domain and subdomain as well. So to remove the Animenation forums, you would toss '-site:animenation.net/forums' into your search query. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 20 August 2011 (GMT)
 * DreamFocus, does this edit summary mean that you don't know if reliable sources exist and what they might say since you don't read Japanese, but you'll vote keep anyway? Just asking. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't see how this here is a reliable source, or how anyone could claim that "The 60 minute Swallowtail Inn adult anime DVD will retail at $29.95 beginning October 12th" establishes notability. It's a mention, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second reliable source I was speaking of is Animatric which Farix removed from the article.   D r e a m Focus  01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see: You didn't hear that. What part of ANIME/RS don't you understand?  Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Animetric is quoted by others considered reliable sources in many places. This includes after the original owner sold to someone else. If it was considered reliable before, I see no reason why notability would suddenly vanish after it changed ownership.  Anime News Network has hordes of reviews that quote them along with other notable sites.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only quoted by a PR department in a press release, which will use any positive quotes to promote their product. But that doesn't allow the reviewer or their website to become a reliable source for reviews. The anime and manga wikiproject had already reviewed the website before and found it to fail WP:SPS. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * fps magazine mentions it. Links to at the end where to find things mentioned in that issue.  But if you want to read everything in the issue, you have to buy it, they just showing you a preview of what was featured there.   D r e a m Focus  17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only mentioned as part of a catalog, which is is still not significant coverage. In fact, catalog entries are specifically excluded from WP:NOTE. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some who agree that if an anime company quotes a site, then that site is notable. The current discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga   D r e a m Focus  23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting one line for PR purposes does not allow a website to pass WP:SPS regardless of how you try to split that hair. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * DF, it seems you don't have consensus on that discussion you reference and the "some who" is you who. It's almost disingenuous of you to bring that discussion up in that context. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to the active discussion. Some means me, Jinnai, Calathan(for reviews done by its original owner), believe its a reliable site, with Gwern not stating an opinion and you and Farix considering it to not be a reliable site.   D r e a m Focus  01:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. That's not what they said. Nobody but you is saying that the site is reliable.  You really didn't hear that.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did. Read what they wrote.  Also, Gwern just commented, clarifying her position that it is a reliable site.  And don't try to hide this since it is relevant to this AFD.   D r e a m Focus  01:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * DF, you said "Whenever someone in the industry quotes them on their product, that should count as notable." Do you really not understand that if someone in the industry quotes them on their product this just as easily suggests that it's NOT a reliable/independent source, especially since there doesn't seem to be a single reliable source that says that your website is a reliable source? For instance, if company X cites blog Y about X's product, and we don't know editorial policy etc., might it not simply be that company X pays the power bill for blog Y? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Its quoted among other notable anime review sites. They don't just choose a random blog.  And there is no reason to believe they received payment in any form.  Did the review sound forced?  Did they give good reviews only to one company?  They send out copies of their stuff to all the major reviewers, an indication that those who know about this sort of thing consider them notable, and then quote the ones that give them good reviews.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Its quoted among other notable anime review sites." Cite them then. Because I haven't found any reliable sources that has republished anything from Animetric so your statement is WP:BOLLOCKS. And being sent "copies of their stuff" doesn't make a website reliable. Especially when the reason the website received the taps was because of previous positive reviews and the company was sending the tape to get a positive quote that the company can then use in their promotions. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, they quote three different Anime websites for reviews, and everyone agrees the others are notable.  D r e a m Focus  03:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So, a company cites three things, two of which are deemed reliable (perhaps), so the other one is reliable too? Wow--what logic. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A is a reliable source because B and C are reliable sources and quoted in the same press release? That is a logical fallacy because the status of B and C as reliable sources has noting to do with being quoted in a press release. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. 2 reviewers per Dreamfocus. I cleaned up the CSE hits as well. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 20 August 2011 (GMT)
 *  Week delete Only one review from a reliable source (maina.com) currently exists. Animetric is a self published website by an author who has not been vetted as a "expert" via WP:SPS and is therefore not a reliable source. (WP:ANIME/RS). The AnimeNation blog entry is merely an announcement based on a pressrelease and doesn't meet the qualification for significant overage as required by WP:NOTE. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds like a pretty hot flick. But reliable coverage is missing, and that it's animated and Japanese doesn't mean it doesn't need reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: only two sources in article, one of which is explicitly a blog, the other of which has been viewed by WP:RSN with skepticism (though not outright rejection). Brief mention (mostly just a plot recap) in The Anime Encyclopedia. No real evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only one seemingly reliable source, mania.com, is referenced in the article, which makes me doubt the subject's notability.  Sandstein   06:06, 28 August 2011 (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.