Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunar 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 of the debate was no consensus, default to keep Proto||type 12:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Anime

Nominated for speedy by timecop ("vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.") and deleted by me. Ynhockey requested undeletion and I agreed, but Knowledge Seeker didn't, so I'm putting it here. -- Scott e^iπ 04:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of WP:RS to back up the notability assertions; even the linked-to website is down. Sandstein 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Khoikhoi 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research vanity ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is not self promotional, the last paragraph (as of this writing) in fact clearly states that the quality is debated. Moreover, this can be re-written, and will be because Lunar Anime has changed entirely since the article was deleted in December. However, CSD A7 (the article under which the article was originally deleted), is completely different from the nomination (vanity self promoting page about anime group. 100% original research as well.). If the issue is notability, then please don't be quick to judge. I will now re-write the article so that the group is clearly notable (at least, compared to fansub groups). Just for the record, I am in no way associated with Lunar Anime. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Lunar is very notable within the fansubs community, but in truth we're talking about a niche within a niche. I would support their inclusion as an example of a fansub community, though I also have to admit it does present an issue of what groups are notable - does that make Lunar notable and, say, Ayu fansubs not? Does it make a case of quality vs quantity (Lunar is known for the former and derided for (lack of) the latter)? In any case, they are one of the more notable groups out there, so I suggest the keep, with the qualification that the article be vastly improved; otherwise merge into Fansub--み使い Mitsukai 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: I've heard of them, and I'm not really an anime fan. 156.34.89.249 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Fansub. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fansubbers are not notable. Less presense than other net groups that wikipedia documents, outside anything but anime-fansub-watchers (which is in the order of a hundred thousand to a million people worldwide). Also, as the lifetime and membership of these groups varies so wildly, and there's no secondary sources to base an article off at all, I don't see how any viable article can be written on them at all. --zippedmartin 13:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt there are only one million fansub watchers, as Lunar's subs, without Bleach (which is more popular than all its other series combined), make up over 3 million downloads. Moreover, just because there isn't an article on Dattebayo Fansubs (assuming you were referring to them with the GNAA link) doesn't automatically mean there shouldn't be one. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

    You're misrepresenting the numbers, obviously many of the same people watch more than just one show, so you can't add torrent figures and claim independant users. Also, no, I was saying that the GNAA are more notable, and have a wider impact, than any fansubbers. When someone takes a group to court or something that gets *a specific group* recognition outside the really quite small fansub-culture arena, then maybe there'll be something to write an article on. --zippedmartin 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone finds some media mentions. Just because they are a well known fansub group does not make them worthy here. Also, how have they changed since December? Kotepho 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It has stopped subbing Bleach, its website went down, and it became more known. Basically I was saying that, the article that was deleted by Scott Burley at the time, isn't the same as it is today. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• They are still just one of many,many fansub groups. There really isn't that much you can say about them and almost all of it is going to not be from reliable sources. This journal article is the best I could come up with, and it is only a passing mention. The only thing that really sets them apart from other fansub groups is they aren't speed subbers. I would say merge with fansub but I'm not sure what that would add to the article. Kotepho 15:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep They're unique enough and the article seems to have been changed to fall outside of self-promotion. I'll second Mitsukai's motion. Wayne Hardman 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - well known and popular group. qwm 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Unless this has had media attention it should not be here. The only source doesn't even work, and that's their own website! Radagast83 18:29, 11 April 2006 (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.