 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Waxworker (talk · contribs) on 23 May 2021. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
To-Do List
editThe plot synopsis is very nice to see. This section should be given a spoiler warning and divided into episodes, and checked for grammar and clarity. I may check around to see if I can find a good illustrative picture. What else should be done? Wyvern 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Fencer of Minerva cover.jpg
edit
Image:Image-Fencer of Minerva cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Notability
editI'm going to remove the notability tag at the top of the article. I personally know nothing about this series but it's clear to me that it is well-known. A Google search using "" brought back about 44,000 results in 0.19 seconds. Hippychick 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk o contribs)
- Apparently not everyone read the Talk page; it was hit with a drive-by Speedy Deletion in May 2021. Luckily we were able to appeal. Wyvern (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was not a speedy deletion it was nominated as a WP:PROD for 7 days which no one contested. A number of hits in a Google search does not indicate notability, my search brought up 152 thousands hits, none of which provide any support of notability. Each hit was either a simple listing site or sites trying to sell the product. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Terminology correction noted, thank you. Wyvern (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- It was not a speedy deletion it was nominated as a WP:PROD for 7 days which no one contested. A number of hits in a Google search does not indicate notability, my search brought up 152 thousands hits, none of which provide any support of notability. Each hit was either a simple listing site or sites trying to sell the product. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's somewhat notable (certainly notorious among Gor fans), but I couldn't really defend the article in its current form, which consists almost solely of unreferenced plot summaries and dramatis personae (more suitable for a fan wiki than Wikipedia)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll agree the article needs work, but that's a very different thing than needing to be destroyed entirely. Most of the character notes can go away and maybe half the plot summary section; if anyone wants them back later the text can be recovered from the change history. I don't have time to edit right now but concur that it's well known within its niche. Wyvern (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Wyvern:, the issue you are missing is not the formatting, it’s the sourcing. If no one has published anything about this series in reliable sources then it is not notable. If you can’t find these sources to support that anyone has taken the time write about this outside of fan and sales sites then no amount of formatting is going to save it. Please see WP:NFILM for more information. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are not making a persuasive argument at the moment, through no fault of your own. I wanted to reference the TV Tropes page on Fencer of Minerva, which was much larger than the Wikipedia entry, and found that that page had also been deleted! (See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FencerOfMinerva for yourself if you like.) So right now is not a good time to convince me with the circular argument that because it's hard to find information on a topic we should delete our own information on that topic. Again, not a bad position, just bad timing. More later... Wyvern (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Wyvern: TV Tropes is not at all a reliable source. If you want to see the TV Tropes page, see this archive, but it shouldn't be used in the article as WP:RSP describes TV Tropes as "considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source." Waxworker (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are not making a persuasive argument at the moment, through no fault of your own. I wanted to reference the TV Tropes page on Fencer of Minerva, which was much larger than the Wikipedia entry, and found that that page had also been deleted! (See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FencerOfMinerva for yourself if you like.) So right now is not a good time to convince me with the circular argument that because it's hard to find information on a topic we should delete our own information on that topic. Again, not a bad position, just bad timing. More later... Wyvern (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Wyvern: I see what the issue is, it’s your understanding of Wikipedia is. WP:WHATNOT may help with this, but in a nutshell Wikipedia isn’t somewhere to write about something because there is a lack of information but instead a place to combine information when there is an abundance of information out there in published reliable sources. This is the reason for our notability inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of thoughts or ideas. My arguments are the only ones being considered in the deletion discussion that is on going about this page. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Wyvern:, the issue you are missing is not the formatting, it’s the sourcing. If no one has published anything about this series in reliable sources then it is not notable. If you can’t find these sources to support that anyone has taken the time write about this outside of fan and sales sites then no amount of formatting is going to save it. Please see WP:NFILM for more information. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll agree the article needs work, but that's a very different thing than needing to be destroyed entirely. Most of the character notes can go away and maybe half the plot summary section; if anyone wants them back later the text can be recovered from the change history. I don't have time to edit right now but concur that it's well known within its niche. Wyvern (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
References
editThis is a good place to bring in references, even those which we would not use in the article itself. Please share any you find. Sadly, advertisers have grabbed most of the top Google results.
As of June 2021, I've just discovered that the TV Tropes page has also been deleted; this had a lot more detail and coverage than Wikipedia's rather bloated coverage and it's gone, presumably permanently. A look at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FencerOfMinerva reveals the deletion leaves behind three red links in other articles and cuts 13 inbound links on their site.
There's an archive copy on the All The Tropes shadow site, although I have my reservations about using the copy as a Wiki article source. https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Fencer_Of_Minerva
My Anime List has a short synopsis and voice cast listings but nothing particularly interesting. https://myanimelist.net/anime/3074/Minerva_no_Kenshi
I'm not even going to try bringing in Naruto crossover fanfic or Deviantart fan art; there must be web-accessible non-realtime commentary articles that have not yet been deleted, yes? Wyvern (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Moving Forward
editHow can we preserve some information for people trying to find it? Deleting all coverage on the internet's most popular general information source is obviously counter-productive.
The argument that this specific anime is not notable enough for its own article has been made - but there is currently no master list for all of Central Park Media 's output. That such a list would be desirable is obvious, and if it existed there would be a reasonable case to be made for merging the various articles on individual works into the master list. This was once a common Wikipedia thing but the current fashion is to simply define a category and automatically list articles tagged as being within that category. That too is fine so long as the articles are allowed to exist... I don't claim to have any answers for the entire Wikipedia style guide, but I will say that while we debate the best way to present factual information we should not make it impossible to find out that information. Wikipedia is the first place people think of coming when they want to find out about something; if we're getting in the way of that we're not doing it right. Wyvern (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- List of hentai anime and List of hentai manga are things. You could do something with those articles. Link20XX (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can you make a list of Central Park Media animes? -- 03:29, 7 June 2021 96.76.115.78