Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fated Souls (private 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 was SPEEDILY DELETED, since we've already done this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fated Souls. Don't do this again, guys. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fated Souls (private anime)

So far this article has been deleted by an admin under a different title, with the reason as being a non-notable game. It has recently been recreated under this name, and while users have tagged it with CSD templates, various IPs have removed these templates, claiming notablity.

To the notablity, the ips claim on their talk pages that it is being created into an anime, but do not cite a source. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced, multiply deleted previously. Dayewalker (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reference added, asserts notability 24.17.83.230 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reference has to be verifiable, a blog in another language is not. Especially on the english wikipedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 08:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a non blog source has been added 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further, this is not the place for two editors to discuss what they dislike or believe about the other, if you have a problem with me, take it up to conflict mediation. I am here because this article does not assert notabilitiy through significant reliable sources of a third party in english. I am here to see it deleted, or, if sources can be provided, to see it stay, and welcome a new addition to the pedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current source is in a different language, can't be verified. Dayewalker (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it right now This can't be serious, a thread on a forum? Fails WP:WEB spectacularly. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Highly notable 65.6.212.189 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it is, as you keep saying, please cite several third party sources independent from the subject.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment high profile anime is inherently notable due to the medium and studio producing it 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true. If this anime is high profile, it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly either, as notability is not inherited.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article stands on its own merits now, even though it wasn't notable in 2006. an editor has expressed concern that the source provided is invalid, which I don't believe, but I don't know how to deal with that so I'm just going to cool my head now. I heard about this show from my friend Masaru Daimon but I guess I'll just leave it alone. Also please look through my edits and notice that Daedalus has something against me and seems to be wikistalking me because he didn't like some perfectly valid edit I made to the Timon and Pumbaa article. sayonara 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a common practice of mine to sort through the edits of a random ip that appears vandalous. Since the edit was properly cited, something you didn't do, I left it alone. It would do you well to check up all WP policies.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further, this is not the place for two editors to discuss what they dislike or believe about the other, if you have a problem with me, take it up to conflict mediation. I am here because this article does not assert notabilitiy through significant reliable sources of a third party in english. I am here to see it deleted, or, if sources can be provided, to see it stay, and welcome a new addition to the pedia.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Already deleted at Fated Souls under this AfD. What has changed since 2006 December? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried CSD'ing it under G4, or is it G3(?) of recreation of previously deleted material, but the ips kept removing the templates, saying that it was notable. Since I didn't know what to do, I AfD'd it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 10:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G4 recreation, not to mention the fact that it's not in the slightest bit notable anyway. I removed the copyright violations and the irrelevant infoboxes. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2008 (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.