Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla Series


 * 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   no consensus to delete. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanilla Series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

With few exceptions, most of the releases in this series do no pass the notability guidelines. While a few individual release barely reaches notability, the series itself does not pass WP:PRODUCT, and the company also fails WP:CORP with no significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The notability of an individual release is not inherited by the rest of the series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Keep. I think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOTINHERITED in this case. While a product line with just one or two notable members is not necessarily notable, I would say that a product line with several notable members is a notable product line.  In addition, The Anime Encyclopedia has a relatively large entry for the Vanilla Series as a whole (in addition to entries for many of the individual anime in the series).  If someone has access to a copy of The Erotic Anime Movie Guide by the same authors, it would probably be useful to check that to see if it has significant coverage of the Vanilla Series. Calathan (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Erotic Anime Movie Guide does not cover the Vanilla Series because the former predates the latter (1998 versus 1999). Keep.  The brand is a significant one within its field.—DocWatson42 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then where are the multiple reliable third-party sources about the series itself that shows that the subject pass WP:NOTE? —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whilst there are only two references in English, they do give "Significant coverage" of the subject, therefore Meets WP:GNG. I think WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORP are not appropriate arguments for this article as to merge the entire content of Vanilla Series with The Right Stuf International would render that section of the article little more than an unwieldy list. This article and The Right Stuf International#Critical Mass do require some bold editing to tidy them up and add more references, but I don't feel deletion is required. Pol430  talk to me 12:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are the two reliable third-party source that give significant coverage to the Vanilla Series? So far, only one has been presented, The Anime Encyclopedia, and it would count more as a directory. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, The Right Stuf International (TRSI) is not the only licensee of properties from the Vanilla Series—Media Blasters/Kitty Media has also licensed a significant number of series, not just three. MB/KM merely does not use the "Vanilla Series" brand to advertise them; compare their respective ANN Encyclopedia entries: Vanilla Series and Kitty Media.  Thus it is not appropriate to merge the articles.  As for another source, Mania.com's Anime/Manga section (formerly Anime on DVD) has reviews of most of what has been released in English—see Vanilla Series Collection and Kitty Media.


 * Whoops—I was wrong about the age of the Vanilla Series brand. It seems that the first release was in 1997, not 1999.  Regardless, The Erotic Anime Movie Guide does not cover it to any extent.—DocWatson42 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to The Anime Encyclopedia, some titles were retroactively considered part of the series by the company. I think the series was actually created in 1999, but the first title that they now consider part of it was released in 1997. Calathan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing but a huge list of titles here and aside from Campus most if not all are non notable and unreferenced, if this article is kept the focus should be less on the titles and more on references for the company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 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.