Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anime Pulse

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Pulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There is an extensive discussion about the article's notability on the talk page, but after reading about half of it I decided to scan the rest because every argument to keep clearly fell under one of various WP:ATA. No independent and reliable secondary sources are cited in the article or on the talk page, and searching Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar barely even turns up trivial mentions let alone significant coverage. The only source I could find is this self-published book called The Best iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry Apps the only relevant text is less than WP:100WORDS of content that appears to be an advertisement for the app. The only real argument for keep has been WP:WEBCRIT because the podcast has won a single award. However, WEBCRIT also says that "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article because it clearly does not meet notability guidelines. The discussion on the talk page places a lot of weight on the other awards that the podcast has been nominated for, but WEBCRIT explicitly says that it would have to actually win for it to count toward notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even if they won an award, there is absolutely no coverage of the podcast I could find. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom's attempt to find independent sourcing here seems to have been sufficiently genuine and broad enough that we can safely say that, for the moment, all that exists to support the notability argument is the award, which can truly be utilized to establish notability standing alone: the purpose of SNGs is to provide insight on where we should exercise the benefit of caution when deciding how much weight to give a limited number of existing reliable sources, or to postpone procedural deletions on the presumption that sourcing is just difficult to find or in active development. But SNGs cannot completely obviate the need for independent, in depth coverage in reliable sources as required under GNG and other relevant policies: at the end of the day one still needs to prove the existence of this coverage (and at a certain degree of weight) in order to satisfy the notability burden: the front line SNG standards can only slightly nuance this reading where sources exist, and even then it is not appropriate to wait forever for such speculative RS to manifest. Here, the nom's work (and for what it's worth, the thimble's full of independent research I did as well) have suggested nothing is out there to change the notability assessment at this time, and the arguments that pending industry awards might change that dips too much into WP:CRYSTAL. Delete for the present time, pending the possibility of future sourcing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 1 August 2021 (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.