Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlight Lady (anime)

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. Less Unless (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Lady (anime)

Moonlight Lady (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Show appears to fail notability requirements, which it has been tagged for since 2020. A previous PROD was removed when 2 "sources" were found and listed in the edit summary. Only 1 of those is a review, the other is a passing mention. Nothing else was found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Japan, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any sources either. Despite the sources found below, I remain unconvinced that reviews by themselves are capable of establishing notability, no matter how many there are, and especially considering they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC); edited 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has a few reviews:
  • "Moonlight Lady Vol. #1 - Mania.com". Mania. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
  • "Shelf Life - Bambuu Saga". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
  • Clements, Jonathan (2015). The anime encyclopedia : a century of Japanese animation. Helen McCarthy (3 ed.). Berkeley, California. p. 548-549. ISBN 978-1-61172-909-2. OCLC 904144859.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Jumpytoo Talk 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Internet Archive link to the book Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First review is user-generated. I'm 66% sure the second review is user-generated. The third review is not a review, just a summary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how you are so sure they are user-generated; both Mania and Anime News Network are both listed at WP:ANIME/RS and are well-known in the anime field for their editorial oversight, particularly in Anime News Network's case. Link20XX (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was misled by the "submit your own review" link at the bottom in the case of Anime News Network. Mania had a lot of stuff on the front on "making an account to contribute to the encyclopedia". I stand corrected (and wow, WPANIME really likes the Anime News Network). Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding your comment above, WP:GNG does not mandate that sources not specialize in a specific field, so I don't understand why they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc matters. While there is something like that in WP:AUD, that is part of WP:NCORP, which doesn't apply to this article since it is not about a corporation. Regarding Anime News Network, while it is true that anime/manga articles frequently cite it, it is just because it happens to be really the only major English anime publication, unfortunately. Link20XX (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; in addition to the above sources from Jumpytoo, I also found this review in THEM Anime Reviews, which is also a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by other AfD !voters above. GNG is met here. Nomader (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources mentioned. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- sources found meet GNG and are reliable per subject matter experts. Wanting something to be covered by other types of news isn't a valid criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to the reviews mentioned above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.