Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milky Studio

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. The "keep" side argues that this studio has produced notable porn, the "delete" side points out that the article lacks any sources except for a link to the studio's website. The latter argument, unlike the former, is based in unambiguous policy.

Milky Studio

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

So far as I'm concerned, this article should NOT be deleted, but has been speedy deleted twice so far. I pretty much based this off of

• Comment Aren't you actually looking for
  deletion review, down the hall two doors on the right? --Dhartung | Talk 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete for having no assertion of notability, no coverage in
  WP:RS, etc. Valrith 16:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  WP:SPAM, intended to grow and grow and . . . . --Evb-wiki 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment -
    Green Bunny should also go. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Appears to have produced some notable animation. Needs to be sourced and fleshed out into an actual article rather than a big list of productions though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:A7. Doesn't assert notability, and is pretty much just fancruft. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but since this is a stub, shouldn't it be ineligible for
    WP:Speedy? --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Stubs are speediable, but I think most would agree that production of a number of notable anime pushes this company out of speedy territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, but not speedy. Most of the content is redlinked, but I'm not seeing notability here either - what else do we know about this studio? Note to the nom: your commentary in the opening blurb is sheer dickitude - please do not be a
  dick. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep particularly for it's role in producing one of the more well known pornographic anime, Bible Black. However, the article could use sourcing and needs to be less of a link farm. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless somebody can expand the article using reliable sources. As of now, it is basically a directory entry Corpx 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has notable animation, particularly the aforementioned Bible Black. Does need serious cleanup, however, as it's just a directory of redlinks right now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean-up per Farix and Sephiroth BCR. Producing one of the most well known pornographic animes, Bible Black is certainly grounds for notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that it should be cleaned up and expanded accordingly.--十八 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... but expand. How does
  WP:A7 work, exactly? Can the works be notable enough to warrant an article, but not its creators?--Nohansen 17:18, 22 August 2007 (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.