Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youmex


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Youmex

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an advertisement for a non-notable company. Not all movies on list are mentioned in reference. Superm401 - Talk 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't know what that source is, but the article doesn't assert notability. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. What the hell ever happened to giving a person more than one day to work on an article? The article was just created and is still being added to. It takes time to source an article when the company has been closed for about 10 years. It clearly states that it's closed now. And most of the titles on the list of productions aren't even movies. Superm401 didn't even bother to look very deeply into it before nominating as anyone who spent just a few minutes researching the titles on the list would be able to see that. Talk about a bad faith nomination. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A deletion nomination isn't a personal attack. I don't think the company itself is notable.  A few more days working on the article isn't going to change that.  Whether the animes are movies or not is orthogonal to whether the company is notable and whether they're sourced. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anyone say it was a personal attack? No. However, when you nominate an article that is barely getting started, and about which you obviously know nothing, you are showing your ignorance and blatant disregard for WP:AGF. The article was created less than 24 ago, less than 24 hours before you nominated it for speedy deletion and on AfD. As I said, this is a bad fatih nomination as you didn't bother to give ANY time for the article to be improved. There are no articles here which were created in a perfect state in the initial edit, and this one is no exception. Now, you've put an artificial and completely unnecessary time limit on getting this article up to snuff just because you can't be bothered to do a little research yourself on the topic. As the company ceased existence almost ten years ago, finding online references is very difficult as the web (especially in Japan) was very young then. Almost all references for this article will likely be printed materials such as magazines and books, so this bogus nomination is causing the research to (of necessity) be extremely rushed and not as thorough as it might be otherwise. As for your movies comment, you're the one who brought it up, and I was merely addressing your ignorance. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, articles don't need to be perfect when they're started. But they do need to source what information's there, and they need to be about notable topics.  Superm401 - Talk 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources are necessary, but when you don't give someone any time to source the article (by nominating it for CSD within hours of its creation, for instance), you are biting people (even if, like me, they aren't new). You threw WP:AGF out the window in this series of nominations, as well. That's the main thing that's pissed me off here. In the future, I strongly encourage you to use unreferenced, Unreferenced, morereferences, and other similar templates to mark the article rather than immediately trying to delete it. You'll certainly save all the trouble of completely unnecessary discussions such as this one. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I think you really need to give an article at least a little time. The one reference in English reference may assert notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, originally I was going to suggest merging to Toshiba EMI, but that one already directs somewhere else and it seems like the new EMI has nothing to do with this. Looking at some of the fairly big titles Youmex did, I think notability can be established given some time, though the company gone, it certainly won't be an easy task. Collectonian (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepand expand. Articles are written in a day. Give people some time before outright deleting their work. To me, it looks as if notability can be established. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Fg2 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Articles should generally be left in userspace until you have good sources for them. Also you should resist the temptation to expand an article based on unreliable sources when reliable sources are unavailable; just leave it as a stub. This for example appears just to be some random personal webpage. IMDB and analogous websites are also rather shady, being full of user-generated content which often ends up being false. That said, this company's list of productions alone, which is now decently well-verified (not so at the time of nomination), strongly implies that better sources exist offline (namely Japanese newspapers published while the company was in existence), so I don't have any particular objection to leaving it in mainspace in the state it's in now. cab (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding that first statement, according to editorial policy no they shouldn't. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, etc. mean that we help other editors, especially new ones, improve their low-quality, unsourced/badly sourced articles, not that experienced users should be clamouring to make more additions to the pile of low-quality, unsourced/badly sourced articles we already have around here. Telling other editors what sources you've already read when you're writing an article is an extremely basic part of collaborative writing; that way they can then correct your interpretation of the sources, suggest additional ones, etc. Mainspace is not a dump for sharing unsourced personal knowledge --- that's why we have talk pages. cab (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you should also not go nominating articles that haven't even had a chance to be worked on yet. This one was marked for speedy deletion less than 9 hours after it was first created, and looking at the history shows that I was actually working on it, expanding, adding references, etc. Less than 10 minutes later, it was AfD'd. That shows incredible bad faith on the part of the nominator as he didn't even bother trying to have a discussion before tagging the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per points by Nihonjoe. A very notable and major company which has been involved in the actual production, financing and publishing of several highly well-known works that have been published and distributed worldwide; this is irrefutable evidence on its own that cannot be denied. There are several notable and verifiable references pointing to the subject's obvious notability, including, but not limited to, published and notable sources in English and the language of origin, Japanese. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is extremely tempting to vote keep on the grounds that an AfD an article less than a day old is a violation of WP:EP, but addressing the actual concerns, the article itself sufficiently demonstrates the notability of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's correct, just the major series like Kimagure or Nadia qualify it. But I'm a little wary - wasn't Nadia (for example) very much a Gainax series? I don't see any mention of Youmex in Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water. --Gwern (contribs) 19:52 4 January 2008 (GMT)
 * Good question. It looks like the creator may or may not have gotten a little lose with the listings.  According to ANN, Youmex did the music production for the Nadia movie, not the series, and they don't list anything under Kimagure.  Might be good to do some source checking to see if that list is fully accurate and not excessively inflated.  That said, ANN does list some notable OVAs for this company, including AD Police and Bubblegum Crisis so still may be a weak keep.  Also, Youmex is mentioned in The Anime Encyclopedia.  I have a copy at the moment, so I'll see if any of those mentions can help clean up this article. Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are a production company, and ANN's listing are extremely bare in regard to Youmex. Many of their credits are for music production (such as the release of many soundtracks under their Futureland label: BGC, KOR, and others fall here). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If they have done music production, then find real sources for them. A catalog # in an online store is not a valid source to show they produced a CD.  I've reverted your undoing of the article changes.  The "sources" provided do NOT meet the reliable sources requirement.  Just because the word Youmex appears on the page does not mean you can presume that means Youmex produced it or had anything to do with it.  And your assertion that Youmex absorbing another companies debt caused its downfall was a complete and total extrapolation from it being mentioned in massing that Youmex AND OTHERS were left dealing with that other company's debts. Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You reverted the changes I made without bothering to read them. I reworded the various sentences to more closely follow what the references said rather than interpreting them. And as for finding more sources, have you even read anything above? Do you know how hard it is to find online sources for a Japanese company that has been defunct for almost ten years? Japan is about where the US was about 5-7 years ago when it comes to online references, and finding printed references takes a lot of time and research. Your removal of the legitimate sources that have been found so far are only hindering the effort to work on this article. As you don't seem to listen to reason, I have protected the article (NOTE: in your version, not the one I prefer) to prevent further abuse of Twinkle to revert edits that you don't like for one reason or another without even giving legitimate reasons (only indicating that you think it's vandalism, which it isn't). Note that I won't be editing the article either until you can decide what the hell you are doing. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've reworked the article to remove all the invalid sources (none really sourced anything in the article), the original research, and all titles that could not be confirmed. I've added another source that confirms most of the titles that ANN lists, as well. So those who already weight in may want to take a quick look at the updated article. (adding dif link as creator has reverted and will probably undo the clean up). Collectonian (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to Collectionian for providing sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Also, restore sources which were removed by Collectonian as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those weren't real sources. See above notes. Collectonian (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The sources were perfectly legitimate, and about the only ones which can be found for this very old topic (in internet terms). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Each of the references were absolutely legitimate; for example, AllCinema is among the most notable Japanese references for Japanese content, and is widely used. In regards to Anime News Network, it is itself an incomplete source with certain entries even being inaccurate in several cases, so I am appalled that it is being considered the "only" source with other more legitimate and notable sources being removed. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Expand & add refs.  I've had personal experience with Youmex's products.   Broken Sphere Msg me 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — Notable. Although the info on IMDB is limited, there's more in various Japanese sources.  It's not that some sources don't exist, they're just old and harder to come by on the internet.  Here's a source I found which links Youmex with the Eberouge computer game.  As you can see, it is dated March 11, 1998.  Also, I disagree with Collectonian going around deleting sources.--Endroit (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like Youmex was involved in a side story game called Toriferuzu Mahō Gakuen Monogatari, producing a CD of the radio drama for the game. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, several various Japanese sources can count for the list of game, music and anime productions Youmex has produced over the years, and since it is an old company the sources will definitely be old and harder to get. A quick look-through can yield several sources, such as Pierrot's official website and here which easily verify Youmex's production of Fancy Lala, which is not accounted for by ANN, yet there are several sources which can prove otherwise. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I have placed specific inline cite references for every possible item, as well as adding the radio drama CD mentioned directly above. I have also reworded some bits to more clearly present information. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:45, 6 January 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.