Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlight Lady (anime)

Moonlight Lady (anime)

[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)

Show appears to fail notability requirements, which it has been tagged for since 2020. A previous PROD was removed when 2 "sources" were found and listed in the edit summary. Only 1 of those is a review, the other is a passing mention. Nothing else was found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Japan, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Can't find any sources either.~~ Despite the sources found below, I remain unconvinced that reviews by themselves are capable of establishing notability, no matter how many there are, and especially considering they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC); edited 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a few reviews:
- "Moonlight Lady Vol. #1 - Mania.com". Mania. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
- "Shelf Life - Bambuu Saga". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
- Clements, Jonathan (2015). The anime encyclopedia : a century of Japanese animation. Helen McCarthy (3 ed.). Berkeley, California. p. 548-549. ISBN 978-1-61172-909-2. OCLC 904144859.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Jumpytoo Talk 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive link to the book Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~First review is user-generated. I'm 66% sure the second review is user-generated.~~ The third review is not a review, just a summary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you are so sure they are user-generated; both Mania and Anime News Network are both listed at WP:ANIME/RS and are well-known in the anime field for their editorial oversight, particularly in Anime News Network's case. Link20XX (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was misled by the "submit your own review" link at the bottom in the case of Anime News Network. Mania had a lot of stuff on the front on "making an account to contribute to the encyclopedia". I stand corrected (and wow, WPANIME really likes the Anime News Network). Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment above, WP:GNG does not mandate that sources not specialize in a specific field, so I don't understand why they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc matters. While there is something like that in WP:AUD, that is part of WP:NCORP, which doesn't apply to this article since it is not about a corporation. Regarding Anime News Network, while it is true that anime/manga articles frequently cite it, it is just because it happens to be really the only major English anime publication, unfortunately. Link20XX (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; in addition to the above sources from Jumpytoo, I also found this review in THEM Anime Reviews, which is also a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by other AfD !voters above. GNG is met here. Nomader (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources found meet GNG and are reliable per subject matter experts. Wanting something to be covered by other types of news isn't a valid criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]