Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to Wakaba-Soh


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wakaba-Soh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested Prod, this article fails per WP:BK, While there are some reviews the article lacks notability with references as well - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/Neutral. I found some reviews, but I'm not entirely sure of whether most of them count as reliable sources or not. I'm not familiar with many of the sites, so I don't think that these reviews are considered reliable enough to show notability. Some input on these would be appreciated. I do want to say in the defense of Manga Maniac Cafe that they've been quoted on book jackets as well as had some of their reviews reprinted in newspapers via blogcritics.org, though. I'm just really ambivalent about this article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Speedy keep - There are at least three WP:RS reviews. – Allen4names 04:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Wakaba-Soh?oldid=487189301 This] revision of the article contain links to four reviews two of witch are at the Pop Culture Shock web site so I propose that this AfD be closed as speedy keep. – Allen4names 15:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are multiple reviews by reliable sources linked in the article. I'm not sure why you would say it fails the notability guinelines despite the reviews, as having multiple reviews from reliable sources has generally always been considered sufficient to show notability. Calathan (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In Knowlegekid's defense, those reviews weren't all there initially and some of them are of dubious notability. I also want to note that the Mania review is not a staff review, it's a review by a random user. Even though it is well-written, Mania is a site where anyone can upload their own review, making her review about the equivalent of an Amazon.com type of review. I just wanted to state my reasons for removing it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is a staff review. See WP:ANIME/RS for instructions on how to tell the two apart.  A staff review will have a URL with a format like http://www.mania.com/*title*_*somenumbers*.html (which is what this review has).  Another easy way to tell if a review is a staff review is that it will list a "Mania Grade" (in this case, the "Mania Grade" is C-).  On the other hand, a review by a user will have a URL like http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html, which is not the format of this review's URL.  Note that user reviews always have the username in the URL, so if there isn't a username in the URL, it is a staff review.  I'm going to restore the review to the article. Calathan (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that- I thought that Mania's were marked "staff review" for some reason and since her profile didn't state she was a staff member, it's easy to see where the confusion would come in. In any case, I moved it to the reception section since it's a review and should be placed in that section to flesh it out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Has reliable sources and reviews. The Mania.com review is a reliable source since it's a staff review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources found proving its notable.  D r e a m Focus  00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find the sources particularly reliable. what would convince me in some recognition in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And why exactly would it need to be in mainstream press? It gets reviewed in places that review this sort of thing, which have been determined to be reliable sources.   D r e a m Focus  12:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * see WP:NEWSORG. Mainstream press is generally considered more reliable. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What of it? Something being considered "more" reliable does not mean that other sources are UNreliable, it just means they are considered "less" reliable. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:NEWSORG that suggests that non-mainstream sources are not reliable. WP:NEWSORG isn't about mainstream vs. non-mainstream sources at all.  While it does suggest that mainstream news sources are generally reliable for facts, I don't see any suggestion in there that non-mainstream sources are considered worse or unreliable just because they are non-mainstream.  I don't think the suggestion that mainstream sources generally get their facts right was meant to imply that non-mainstream sources are not reliable.  The sources used in this article include print and online magazines that clearly have editorial review, which makes them reliable sources.  Other sources like Mania.com have been discussed and have passed as sources in featured articles before, and are generally established as being reliable. Calathan (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have always been accepted. Its either a reliable or its not, you can't say one is more reliable than others.  I'll discuss on the talk page of that article the removing of the word "mainstream" from the suggested guideline page.   D r e a m Focus  07:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per multiple reviews, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (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.