Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaella

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 delete. Courcelles 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exaella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article, by its producer, about an unreleased "Original Video Animation (OVA) anime." The author contested a PROD whose reason was "Search for reliable third-party sources comes up with nothing. In fact, I cannot even find it listed on any anime databases (reliable or unreliable), so its claim that it is an anime is highly suspect." Author's response on talk page is "its not in any anime databases because it is getting release at the end of ths year!" Not surprisingly, there is not the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required to establish

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The creator has only three contributions ever, two on his talk page, and the creation of this article. He never protested the prod anywhere. You removed the prod, and then send it to this AFD. Why not just let the prod delete it? Dream Focus 18:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted by PROD, but an IP, evidently the author, requested undeletion on my talk page, and commented on the article talk page; so I restored it and brought it here. I have explained things on the author's talk page, and apologised that Wikipedia is not good at explaining in advance what it is not for. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per my original deletion proposal. There are no reliable sources that verify this animated film beyond its own website. The article's creator is
  notability guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If it hasn't been released and hasn't received any independent coverage it's not notable.
  talk) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete, would qualify as speedy a7 if, as likely, it is only going to be available by web. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this in not an elaborate hoax, feel free to delete the Exaella wiki page, but once the dvd gets released this year i assume that the page can be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.161.215 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just being released is unlikely to be enough - in order to establish
  significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources which would probably not be available until independent reviews and comment were available. See advice on your talk page at User talk:Andrewoudot. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable because no citations so this is a promotional article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Chain (talk • contribs)

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.