Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Guts!

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Guts! edit

[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)

Has already been PRODded, sole source is this review from Mania about an OVA based on the games, was unable to find anything else about the OVA or the games themselves to incorporate. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - This is one of a few officially licensed hentai anime films that got translated and dubbed into English by a Media Blasters so it is notable in that it's one of a few titles that got officially translated into English and is well known. Alongside some other titles, it is still used in memes like other hentai and has reviews about it online. There are written reviews as well as video reviews on this title. I will continue to work on expanding sources for the page but I think it should stay as it is notable among people online. The fact that it has a page on Wikipedia is proof enough. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 05:53, June 18, 2021 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article existing for something doesn't inherently make it notable - articles for deletion exists for a reason. Youtube reviews aren't reliable as they're user-generated and it's just some random guy - not an expert. One of the reviews you linked to, Animetric, is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikiproject Anime and Manga, see WP:A&M/ORS. The reliability of two other sources you added, 'Erosou' and 'Ima-ero' is unclear. Can you explain how they're reliable and who runs them? Another issue is that all of these sources is for the OVA, not about the video games the OVA is based on at all. Waxworker (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article has a review from Mania (a reliable source). Can someone who owns the anime encyclopedia tell us if it has an entry? If it does or if other sources are found, I will lean Weak Keep like the previous AfD discussions, else I will say Redirect to Media Blasters as a related topic, since they released the series internationally. Link20XX (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Link20XX: It does, here is a preview. Jumpytoo Talk 00:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I alluded to this above, but my stance is Weak Keep. Link20XX (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Link20XX: Neither the Mania source or the entry in 'the anime encyclopedia' are about the series of video games, which seems to be the main focus of the article. I was unable to find any sources for the games themselves, and the sourcing for the OVA is largely just the Mania review, as from what I can see of the anime encyclopedia, entries in it are rather brief and are largely production info and a plot description rather than something substantial. Waxworker (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are still covering the topic of the franchise, even if it wasn't the primary media. The article is about the franchise as a whole. Link20XX (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vixens was also a manga first. I fail to see how this is any different, just because the source is a video game instead. Link20XX (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view it as any different - in both cases the articles have a Mania ref and an entry in the anime encyclopedia, which strikes me as scraping the bottom of the barrel. There isn't substance to the anime encyclopedia entry in my opinion, as it's largely just production info and a plot description rather than commentary on the subject. One review from Mania doesn't make an article. Waxworker (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't substance to the anime encyclopedia entry in my opinion sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. They are giving the series coverage, regardless of opinions on it. Link20XX (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Link20XX, the Mania article and book source do check all the boxes for WP:GNG, through just barely. Jumpytoo Talk 06:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:37, 2 July 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.