Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren Visual (2nd 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 redirect to List of anime companies#Australia. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Visual

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No consensus at last AfD (12 years ago) and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Has published allegedly-notable titles, but I couldn't see that overall it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG - available sources are not strong. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would have gone for a merge and redirect to something like Anime in Australia, but there is no such article. I think this is important for the Australian context, but yes, it is as struggle to find enough to support the usual standard for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep looking at their page in the ANN encyclopedia (not a reliable source but it lists news articles about them), there do appear to be a few that may pass WP:CORPDEPTH, like this one or this one. Link20XX (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Update: Found more sources below. Link20XX (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. The suggested sources above don't appear to be good sources, either. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read them? The former of those is all about the company and no matter how you spin WP:CORPDEPTH, I would say it counts. Additionally, I found this in The Fandom Post (reliable per WP:ANIME/ORS) that not only is all about the company but also adds on some commentary about the acquisition and the company's history, which is one of the examples of non-trivial coverage. Oh and this from ScreenAnarchy (also reliable) also provides some commentary on Siren's title acquisitions. Link20XX (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I read them. See my comments below. None meet NCORP. HighKing 10:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of anime companies#Australia as per WP:ATD. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.

This from AnimeNewsNetwork is based entirely on a company announcement. First sentence confirms it. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
Next from AnimeNewsNetwork is also based on a company press release. Also confirmed in the first sentence of the article. Most of the article discusses the titles that are about to be released and there is no in-depth information about the company. Also fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
This from The Fandom Post is arguably not from a reliable source, looks more like a blog-type website with a number of contributors and plugs getting supported by Patreon. Leaving that aside, the "article" is reporting on "an update from another local distributor of cult films" that the topic company was acquired by them. So .. that would mean the "announcement" that the very short article is based on was potentially from the new owners (if the content was ever verified). This article fails WP:RS as we don't consider rumours and unverified statements as meeting the criteria for establishing notability.
This from Screen Anarchy is based entirely on an announcement on the topic company's website and facebook. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.

I have been unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fandom Post is considered a reliable source for a few reasons (discussion), as well as Chris Beveridge being interviewed by Anime News Network (link), and his website has also been covered by them (link), in addition, he has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The Anime News Network article is also NOT a press release. Press releases on Anime News Network look like (this), and that one is clearly not like the press release I linked (it is also indicated in the url). In addition, the screenanarchy article has multiple paragraphs about the company after the announcement. If you ask me, you are setting the inclusion bar far too high. Link20XX (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response I "left aside" my doubts on the reliability of Fandom Post (and I would argue that the "discussion" you pointed to resolves nothing) and explained why that source failed anyway. Based on your response, I recommend to pay particular attention to the requirements of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and pay particular attention to the wording used in my !vote. For example, I did not say that the Anime News Network article *is* a press release, I said that is was *entirely based* on a press release and that it contains no in-depth information on the topic company. Similarly, the Screen Anarchy reference is *based* on an announcement (and this is stated in the first sentence) and the rest of the article has zero information *on the company* which is the topic of this article. The inclusion bar is tough, on purpose and for good reasons. I do not believe my reading and interpretation is incorrect - read our guidelines. For example, WP:SNG specifically references the stricter requirements for companies/organizations. WP:SIRS specifically states what the Primary Criteria are and also says:

"An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability."

I'm happy to look at any new references and if multiple references that meet both ORGIND and NCORP can be found, I'll change my !vote. HighKing 10:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article from The Fandom Post is not based on a rumor at all, and it provides a bit of commentary on the company and its history, thus it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The screenanarchy article also does just this after the announcement. I did some more looking and found this, this, and this. While the latter two are WP:INTERVIEWS, they do add commentary about the company. If these sources do not meet your high standards, would a possible ATD be redirecting it to List of anime companies#Australia. Link20XX (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect as you suggest. I've changed my !vote above to reflect this alternative. HighKing 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the sources I found are sufficient, particularly the refs from The Fandom Post (commentary on history), ScreenAnarchy (multiple paragraphs after the announcement), and the third of those 3 especially (3 paragraphs all on the company) is more than sufficient for notability. Link20XX (talk) 09:23, 25 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.