Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyAnimeList (4th nomination)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList

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

Non-notable website. Fails both WP:N and WP:WEB. The last nomination was closed as "no consensus", presumably because two new online sources were brought up. Discussion of those sources was inconclusive. Links to both sources are now dead. Good raise 21:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable - it is the only website of its kind in the world - the only anime social networking site in the world, thus from that fact alone it is automatically notable, just as Anime News Network is automatically notable as it is the only encyclopedia on anime (other than wikipedia). Also in 2009 it had over 200000 users, now that number must surely be higher - these numbers also makes it notable. Regarding the rules - they will have to be changed to suit this particular case - in other words the rules will have to be dynamic (there is a rule in wikipedia - "ignore all rules" or something like that meaning that if a rule gets in the way of making wikipedia better or adding things, or if it gets in the way of logic, then ignore it - it applies here) - rules are at their best if they are dynamic and accommodate specific situations and facts (such as the fact that this is the only anime social networking site), otherwise if they are static it creates significant problems. There are so many questionable and useless articles on wikipedia but you want to delete this? This is a prime example of what is wrong with wikipedia and and why it would never even be near-perfect (let alone perfect). Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge - what kind of repository is it if this article, which is notable, gets deleted? What kind of reputation will it have then (never mind that wikipedia's reputation is already lousy). How can it not be notable when it is the only website of its kind in the world, and has a really large number of registered users? It would go against logic to delete this, and it seems that Goodraise doesn't want to understand, it seems he just want to delete it for the sake of it or because he is just simply against it (why else would he put so much repeated effort into trying to do this?). Here are other websites that mention it http://dailytechie.com/myanimelist; and this http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/04/idUS142955+04-Aug-2008+PRN20080804. It seems people just want to find things to fight about on wikipedia - is it boredom or an simply an effort to to be worthy? What ever it is, deleting this article is going over the top and is extreme - again this is a good example of the things that are very wrong with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.233.181.106 (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize that wall of text: MAL is notable because it is unique and claims to have many users. WP:N (which among other things states that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists") should be ignored or changed. Sources exist.

The sources you name are a press release and a random blog post. I suppose you want us to change or ignore WP:V and WP:RS as well? That's really the core problem: We don't have the sources we need to write a decent article. There's no way around that. Cite WP:IAR as much as you want. It won't help. Good raise 18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CSE. --Gwern (contribs) 01:05 17 March 2012 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:WEB. This should have been deleted long ago, but past AfDs on this were plagued with flawed keep rationales that cited term papers and press releases. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:WEB. Nothing in this article shows that it meets the notability requirements presented in that policy, and searching on my own comes up with no additional reliable third party sources. As previously stated, the only third party sources that can even be found are either from personal sites (such as non-notable blogs) or copies of the press release about the site's sale. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failture of WEB. Does not meet requirements of notablility. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 19:08, 27 March 2012 (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.