Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Animation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Majorly (o rly?) 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Universal Animation
Non-notable organization that operates two anime conventions and a manga library. There are numerous organizations in the world that operate these sort of conventions. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources to indicate notability or to write an article from. --Farix (Talk) 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like there's five of them in the external links section already, and there's probably more that can be found by exploring the references of the two conventions they run. Bryan Derksen 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Links to webpages that have a direct relation to the subject of the article are not reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like there's five of them in the external links section already, and there's probably more that can be found by exploring the references of the two conventions they run. Bryan Derksen 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Correction. Universal Animation is already mentioned in the AnimeNEXT article. KyuuA4 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep But article needs to be cleaned and references updated. Most of the time, anime non-profit organizations are established to run a single event, and the organization can be referenced in the article for the event. For those that run multiple events or do other notable things, a separate article is warranted. New England Anime Society is another example of an organization that runs multiple events. Echocharlie 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as to why pointing to an article is not a reason that another should pass AfD. One rather significant difference between the two is that the New England Anime Society has been mentioned in the press (such as local papers) and by other third parties quite a bit. I looked around a lot for articles about Universal Animation, but I'm having a very difficult time finding any mention of "Universal Animation" in anything other than a press release. (The fact "Universal Animation Studios" shows up a lot doesn't make the search any easier.) WP:CORP states that a "company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." Yes, the organization is the parent organization of AnimeNEXT and MangaNEXT, which are notable...but notability cannot be inherited. Universal Animation must have notability on its own. --PatrickD 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Valid points, though one could argue that the subject in the articles cited are the events, not the organization. Likewise, one could point to several similar articles which reference Universal Animation and can be used to demonstrate notability. The article should be updated with these references if it is kept. Echocharlie 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the three links and none of them would meet the "non-trivial" part of the primary notability criteria. -Farix (Talk) 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Valid points, though one could argue that the subject in the articles cited are the events, not the organization. Likewise, one could point to several similar articles which reference Universal Animation and can be used to demonstrate notability. The article should be updated with these references if it is kept. Echocharlie 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Says nothing that would not belong in the articles on their two cons. Therefore it is not notable in its own right. —Dgiest c 07:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
DeleteWeak Delete - The organization is not very noteworthy to being with. --Dispenser 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)- Keep - if the cons are notable I think it's not unreasonable to have an article about the organization that runs them. If this article's deleted the information would just be added redundantly to two other articles, it makes more sense to separate it out like this. Bryan Derksen 17:04, 12 February 2007 (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.
