Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PES -peace eco smile-

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. It's WP:TOOSOON to have a article for this yet, but a new article might be restarted (or this one resurrected, contact any admin in that case). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

PES -peace eco smile-

PES -peace eco smile- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This unreleased series is a commercial promotion and has no significant independent coverage. It does not meet WP:GNG. Cmprince (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - People were recently spamming links about this series in the Anime News Network forums in what appeared to be a promotional campaign. That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I thought I would mention that in case any of that occurs here. Calathan (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Assuming Anime News Network meets WP:RS, which I think it does, then the two references should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. – hysteria18 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage", "in detail" and not "trivial mentions", from "multiple sources". Two press releases from the same website certainly don't satisfy that.139.140.214.176 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any doubt that the two references, neither of which appear to be press releases, each go beyond "trivial mentions". I think WP:GNG is ambiguous on whether multiple articles in the same publication constitute "multiple sources", but the third footnote clears things up a bit and seems to imply that they're acceptable. In the absence of absolute clarity on the policy, I stand by my !vote. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• I don't think WP:GNG is ambiguous at all, as it says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". The third footnote then says, ". . . a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The main text is clear that multiple articles from the same source normally does not satisfy the requirement of "multiple sources" needed to meet the GNG. The footnote then reinforces this point. Even if you find the main text to be vague, I'm not sure how you can interpret the footnote as providing clarity that multiple articles from the same publication count as multiple sources, as it says nothing to that effect. Calathan (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, yeah, your interpretation's probably correct, and I've strikethrough'd my !vote accordingly. My interpretation was based on the source mentioned not being the article but (in this case) the Anime News Network itself, an alternative interpretation supported as an existing ambiguity by the second sentence of WP:RS. Looked at that way, ""multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source" means that, for instance, Anime News Network and Protoculture Addicts would be considered a single entity. As for the footnote, the meaning of "series" is ambiguous: the two articles aren't exactly a series in any sense, so either the sentence is irrelevant or the wording's kind of needlessly confusing. – hysteria18 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete/userfy. I wasn't able to find enough sources that would be considered reliable and show a depth of coverage of this animation. There might be more sources in Japanese that I wasn't able to find, so I'm willing to change my mind if someone can provide them. It's just that in the end I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON since the animation was just recently announced and all we have are news articles that stem from limited press releases. They haven't even released anything beyond one trailer for the series, so it's just too soon for this to warrant its own article. It might be worth userfying if someone's interested in cultivating it until/if more sources become available. I would almost say that this would benefit from being a redirect to the animation company that produced it for the time being. I was going to say Toyota, but it'd probably be better if it's redirected to the people who were responsible for making the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete for now There aren't enough reliable sources just yet, and it seems it hasn't been released yet. Maybe when it has been released and there is more coverage, then it can have its own article like Wish Upon the Pleiades (did Toyota just steal an idea from Subaru?). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:17, 16 April 2012 (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.