Guyver: The Bioboosted Armor: Sourcing consists of a primary Funimation link (don't click on it), and another one, an ANN page about a subject that doesn't even mention the subject, and a dead link to a forum.  Existence does not equate to notability.  PROD removed by an IP editor, who said only "linked sources provide adequate references", which I think is obviously incorrect.  Drmies ( talk ) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; this article is poor but there are tons of reviews in reliable sources : Anime News Network , THEM Anime Reviews , DVD Talk , UK Anime Network , Otaku USA , Ain't It Cool News , The Fandom Post , AnimeNation , among others.  Link20XX ( talk ) 01:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but I looked at all of them, and they are all user-submitted reviews on websites that don't even claim to have editorial overview of these reviews.  These fan sites don't qualify as WP:RS , and if ANN is accepted for data like publishing information etc., that doesn't mean the user-submitted reviews on that website add to notability per the GNG.  Drmies ( talk ) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not "fan sites" as you suggest but reliable sources that have been heavily discussed at WP:ANIME/RS .  To address some of the individual sources, Anime News Network ' s reviews are widely accepted across the website to be reliable and count towards notability (or else s significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability). Otaku USA is a magazine and far from a fan site. DVD Talk , Ain't It Cool News , AnimeNation , and THEM Anime Reviews are all in the same boat. The remaining don't have Wikipedia pages but have been nonetheless determined to be written by authoritive individuals in the subject. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They don't show up in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , but the question is whether something made notable only by mention on such fan sites (or whatever you want to call them) is notable in general: as we all know, sites like ANN write up everything that appears, meaning everything would be notable. That a "significant amount of the articles about anime/manga would fail notability" seems like a given to me, but that's not a concern here. Just to look at DVD Talk , apparently the best that could be said about them is "worth a visit" and "a source of information for DVDs"--how could any of that mean anything for notability per GNG? Ain't It Cool News is best known for its founder being accused of sexual assault--where is that site proven to be reliable and noteworthy? Where, on their website , is a statement about their editorial policy? ANIME/RS can say what it wants, but if something can't even be proven to be reliable, it shouldn't be a factor in determining notability. Drmies ( talk ) 01:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The IP address below linked to an IGN review, which is listed at WP:RSP . But even despite the other sources not being listed at RSP, that pages notes that sources might not be on the list because they "cover a niche topic" and that "For sources in a specific field, there may be more information about reliability of them provided by specific WikiProjects", which is exactly the purpose of that page. You said ANN "covers everything" but this is innacurate and ANN has some topics it has not covered (for instance Manhole (manga) was on the main page without citing ANN once). WP:GNG / WP:NTV do not make any mention that sources do not count towards notability just because they usually cover niche topics. I'm not gonna discuss why people came to the consensus they did, but discussions in the past have come to the consensus that they are reliable and I've seen articles be kept at AfD with less than half this many sources (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judas (manga) ] or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavane for a Dead Girl ). Link20XX ( talk ) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies Passing comment: I consider THEM Anime Reviews reliable-ish as they have editorial control. Users don't post reviews, they have staff [38] . I think they have an application for staff position place somewhere in their forums. I know b/c ages ago I wrote a review for them on the forums and they rejected it for not being good enough. So, errrr, they have some standards :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; There is at least 1 source that clearly mentions guyver. source 4. there are 2 external links, one to IMDB and the other to Anime News Network that clearly and prominently displays the anime and contains clear information about it. a physical magazine is referenced, I don't know how to access that but I'm sure it could be confirmed in a major library.  That seems to be fairly credible sources to me, but if that is not notable enough then I guess it doesn't deserve a page, even though this was a published work and was very popular at the time. I don't really know how wikpedia works to be honest but you asked for my input so that's the best I can do. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Mentioning" something only helps toward proving existence, and "existence does not equate to notability"--I said that already in the PROD, which you reverted without, apparently, reading it. IMDB is not an acceptable source. ANN isn't one either, at least not in terms of notability. A physical magazine--if you can't point at what it is and what its editorial practices are, it's not very helpful. Drmies ( talk ) 01:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, well I'm afraid I don't understand what PROD is and the idea that IMDB is not a decent source seems wild to me. I can't even begin to imagine what these guidelines would deem acceptable. is IGN acceptable? https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/12/16/guyver-the-complete-series ? I mean pretty much everyone I've spoken to knows what the Guyver anime is, so this is crazy. well good luck with it. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you don't understand what "PROD" is you can look it up--but you were interested enough to remove it. No, IMDB is not a reliable source. I can point you to WP:RS , which is not crazy. Drmies ( talk ) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have ADHD, I can't deal with all those regulations. you're good at that stuff so I bow to your guidance. 2A00:23C5:8E81:9201:927:FF14:D991:99D ( talk ) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Anime and manga ,  and Japan . Link20XX ( talk ) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Link20XX ( talk ) 02:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG with plenty of reviews listed above including: IGN , Anime News Network , a Chris Beveridge byline at The Fandom Post (note this site is not affiliated with Fandom.com ), and a Ross Locksley (né Ross Liversidge) byline at UK Anime Network . None of these publications are considered generally unreliable, the named authors are widely cited both on Wikipedia and in other reliable sources. I see no reason to consider these specific pieces unreliable for purposes of this article/discussion. If we wish to consider any of these publications generally unreliable, I believe the discussion would need to take place at WP:RSN per WP:CONLEVEL . — siro χ o 05:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete most (if not all) are trivial mentions, rest are from fansites. Might be coverage in the native-language media, but I can't find any. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ANN, IGN, and Otaku USA are reliable sources and their reviews count as WP:SIGCOV . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The provided sources by Link are reliable per WP:ANIME/RS and are non WP:SPS , they are written by the sites hired writers. Jumpytoo Talk 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per User:Siroxo (I agree those are reviews in RS), and my comment above on why I think THEM is RS as well. That's enough to meet GNG IMHO. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per other editors pointing out the reviews in reliable sources. Comment: ANN at least has editorial oversight [39] and does not accept fan-written reviews [40] , contrary to the OP's statements. Also, as @ Siroxo says, this is the wrong place to discuss the reliability of specific sources. CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 03:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. D r e a m Focus 18:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ANN ... fan site ... user-submitted reviews ... what??? Charcoal feather ( talk ) 00:12, 29 September 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.

Discussion outcome: keep