Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Issue with H-Games

I really hate to have a discussion targeted towards one particular editor, especially one that I know is acting in good faith, but I have some serious concerns over the massive amounts of article creations from {{u|AnimeDoki2069}}. While I understand the desire to create articles, their creations largely show a disregard for WP:NOTABILITY, one of the website's core policies. Take D-Genesis: Three Years after the Dungeons Appeared as an example; the article is almost completely primary sources, and the few independent sources it has are just carbon-copies of press releases, which are not considered strong enough to count towards notability. If this was an isolated incident, I would just nominate the article for deletion and be done with it, but then I found several other articles they wrote with the same issue: They Don't Know I'm Too Young for the Adventurer's Guild, Peddler in Another World: I Can Go Back to My World Whenever I Want!, To Another World... with Land Mines!, The World's Least Interesting Master Swordsman, among others. Sometimes they include an award, but this only counts towards notability if it won the award and if the award is notable, which is rarely the case. While I'm not saying that none of these series are notable, I think AnimeDoki2069 needs to do a better job showing their notability. Link20XX (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've noticed this, but I haven't chimed in yet because I've been quite busy and haven't had the time to check each article individually to assess their notability. While I assume good faith on AnimeDoki2069's part as well, we shouldn't create articles just for the sake of it, which is the same point I've made when others request articles for series with little to no coverage. Xexerss (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I've had a cursory look at their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/AnimeDoki2069 page creations], and, yeah. There's a handful of these I'd say are possibly worth redirecting to lists, particularly the ones that have like a couple sources of WP:ROUTINE Japanese coverage, or draftifying as potentially WP:TOOSOON since some of them (like KitaKimi) are quite popular with the readership of the magazine they were in and stand a non-zero chance of getting adapted to anime. The vast majority, though, can probably be safely deleted as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looks as if the majority of these articles have only ever been edited by AnimeDoki and don't even come with a plot summary, which I'd say, for a work of fiction, should be the absolute minimum of information to be included for the article to be remotely useful for readers. (I mean, if you can't even say in your own words what the series is about yourself, then do you actually care?)

::I'd say also that, speaking anecdotally, this issue does not stop at AnimeDoki- a significant amount of articles about manga and novels under the purview of this WikiProject are extremely threadbare, just containing a plot summary, list of volumes, and an award that it may or may not have won, and only ever get edited when/if they get an anime adaptation. I know it's difficult for us to find high quality sources about a lot of popular series, but I'm not even sure these articles are being created because the series in question are popular, it feels more like they're just being created just because they exist. We all should really be more discerning about what articles to start in general. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a doubt I have. Can't series on their own have their own articles? I know characters have more strict guidelines but I never saw that case when it came to series. For example, the same happened with most of the One Piece characters who barely have references in their reception but I want to stay away from it as last time I tried reverting stub character articles, I was personally attacked. Tintor2 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think having a standalone article for any given series is generally fine as long as there's at least a few good pieces of RS secondary coverage to prove notability for it. A standalone article for a fictional character will naturally have to meet a higher standard to prove that there's more to say about them that can't adequately be covered in the main series article. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Here I'm just concerned about notability. While a plot summary is important for an article about a work of fiction, it's not required to meet notability. I don't doubt that some of the articles they created are notable, but they should do a better job establishing that is what I'm saying. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I understand that a plot summary isn't relevant for establishing notability, but it is nonetheless true that an article with a plot summary is going to be more useful to readers in Wikipedia. An article that just lists the name of the series and the number of volumes might as well just be a store listing. All other things being equal, the article with a plot summary definitely has a higher chance of getting my support than the one without. Even if a series is notable, I'd rather the article be being created by someone invested in writing out at least the basic details in prose, rather than just filling it out like it's a database entry. The fact that many of these articles do resemble database entries isn't irredeemably damning, for sure, but it definitely doesn't help the situation. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm really sorry, but some user requested me to create some of these articles. AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:: You don't have to create every request you get; you can decline them or ask that the requester create the article. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, what Link said. Someone requesting an article doesn't mean it's automatically notable, you should be making sure of that yourself before creating it rather than trusting that the person you asked made sure for you. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And I didn't know this thing was so serious. AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not that it's "so serious" really, but keep in mind that by getting stricter about the notability guideline it's more likely that other editors will start nominating the articles you've created for deletion and it will probably happen to a lot of them, which would be a shame, regardless of the reason, because of the time you spent creating them in the first place. Xexerss (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@AnimeDoki2069: Dumb question but is the requester called Venom5122? If so, this user requested some translations from me as well. --Goroth (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Goroth Yes AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for confirming. --Goroth (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think we should have a notability guideline now for anime, manga, and light novels, similar to the guidelines found in :Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Centcom08 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not certain we need them. I feel like all relevant guidance is already established in WP:NTV, WP:NFILM, and WP:NBOOK. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with SilviaASH; I don't think we need a specific guide for manga and light novels when WP:NBOOK lays it out pretty clearly. Link20XX (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:It seems like we're all in agreement that there is an issue here. The question then is what action should be taken? Link20XX (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::What do you mean with that? AnimeDoki2069 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hopefully AnimeDoki understands the issue now and won't create articles without showing notability anymore, and we won't need to have this conversation again.

::As for what we should do now, I'd say handle these just like we handle any cluster of articles with questionable or unclear notability. Improve the ones that seem to satisfy WP:NEXIST (or park sources on the talk page with {{refideas}} and throw a {{sources exist}}, on it), AfD the ones that don't, and otherwise just carry on as we are. There's no urgently pressing need to remove all of these, we'll clean them up in time when we have time.

::Ideally we should keep better watch over new articles getting tagged with the WikiProject Animanga template and more quickly respond to the ones that have obvious problems. The Video game WikiProject talk page gets semi-automated periodic updates notifying that WikiProject's editors of new articles so that they can be centrally discussed if need be. We could try doing something similar if it might be helpful. Individual editors can also try watching relevant categories and keeping track of the notifications of new articles getting added to them in their watchlists. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That sounds fine with me. I'll go through a couple of them and see what I can do. Also, we do have Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Anime and manga articles by quality log which lists the new articles in the project for watching new creations. Link20XX (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Generally speaking, are light novels that have been licensed in the West considered notable, or it's a case-by-case thing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Case-by-case thing. Not every light novel that's been published in English will have received reliable source coverage. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

One issue with anime and manga coverage in Japan (and this is in general and not about this specific case) is that almost all Japanese coverage about the industry is basically churnalism. For example, if an anime is announced, the same article (I think basically a press release) is word-for-word published across multiple sites (for example Oricon and others). Actual genuine coverage for manga, light novels, or anime is hard to come by and as far as I can tell almost never exists outside of these word-for-word copypasted articles. This basically means that finding non-routine or significant Japanese coverage for almost anything in the anime/manga/light novel industry is almost like a fool's errand. This doesn't mean such sources should be discounted, of course, but it's at least something to keep in mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:A few sources recycling a press release is at least evidence that there's some assumed interest about a given series, so while it might not be enough to justify an article, it probably is enough to justify redirecting the title to a list. In general I'd say any articles based solely off of such coverage should be draftified so that they can be updated and published if sources are found for them, and then their titles redirected to an appropriate list entry in mainspace if any should exist, either for their genre, author, or publication that serializes them. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, manga and light novels can also be notable through the SNG WP:NBOOK, particularly WP:BKCRIT 2 (won an award) and 3 (a notable adaptation, which I usually interpret to mean anything with an anime or live-action adaptation). Additionally, ranking in a notable bestsellers list also counts as significant coverage per BKCRIT 1. Link20XX (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I hate to have to revisit this discussion already, but I noticed that AnimeDoki2069 has created two articles while this discussion was ongoing that still have all the problems I listed above (The Tanaka Family Reincarnates and Pens Down, Swords Up: Throw Your Studies to the Wind). Additionally, another user, {{u|SimonLagann}} has done the same thing (see Zilbagias the Demon Prince: How the Seventh Prince Brought Down the Kingdom and Nakamura-san, the Uninvited Gyaru). Link20XX (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just to add, the same issue occurs with visual novels and light novels as well as anime and manga, all of which are covered by the anime project. The Japanese coverage wouldn't be what we consider reliable. English-language coverage is hard to come by too. This includes even series with large fanbases. So it'd be helpful to make sure we're proactively checking and responding on the Reliable Source discussions which often just don't get responses. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given the lack of activity there, I feel like at this point we might be better off bringing any particularly questionable sources to WP:RSN. However, the four sources that were most recently brought there (Anime Recorder, Febri, Eplus and Lis Ani) by User:SuperGrey all appear reliable as far as I can tell. They often interview high profile creators and industry figures and I've used each of them myself in articles.

::I've also been checking on some of the series in my sphere of interest to see if they warrant the articles they have. I couldn't find any meaningful sources about Kitanai Kimi ga Ichiban Kawaii, which could probably redirect to Comic Yuri Hime since it's listed there, My Girlfriend's Not Here Today seems to be barely notable off the back of its award and the author being interviewed in Febri, though that could change, and There's No Freaking Way I'll be Your Lover! Unless... seems to be in much the same boat, although it's almost certainly going to get covered more when its anime comes out so it's probably fine to keep.

::I'd like a lot of these series to be able to have articles, but I expect when I dig deeper I'll find a depressing number of series that fall to WP:BFDI degrees of "sure wish this was notable but it sure isn't" going on. Of course it's possible that any of these could have more coverage we're missing in print sources, but, not holding my breath for anyone to find any. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do hope you guys could voice your opinions on the RS talk page, even if it's just "Ditto." Source checks are important, since we'll be using them as the basis for notability discussions. SuperGrey (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking for any interested editors to help improve the Saeko: Giantess Dating Sim article. In particular, if there are any interested editors proficient in Japanese who can add or translate additional information from Japanese language-sources already in the article or listed as potential sources on the talk page (particularly to expand the reception section with opinions from Japanese reviewers), and/or double-check that all the information already in the article is properly verified by the sources used, it would be a great help. Thanks in advance! silviaASH (inquire within) 05:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I've opened § Nausicaa.net in animation-related articles on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'd appreciate if other editors could chime in there to help determine the reliability of Nausicaa.net for use on Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I expanded Last Quarter a while back and I think it no longer qualifies as a stub. I would like someone to reassess it, and since I was the one who expanded it, I don't think I'm the right person to do that. lullabying (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I assessed it as a C. No production section and a minimal reception section, but good otherwise. Link20XX (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

hi, i'm Questioning, and i came here for mid apparently. but in all seriousness, i intend to thoroughly expand the Shamanic Princess article (and might go too far), so feel free to give advice on what to not do or how much is too much. is now a good time to say i've checked over multiple advertising & product materials for the OVA and wrote image descriptions for 'em? >.>

i get the impression, from the discussion above regarding Wikipedia:Notability, that i should contain the vast majority of the material info i've accumulated within the SP article, avoid creating any new articles unless it's very justifiable needed, and add some of the info to existing articles they would belong in

_{like Atsuko Nishida's, which makes her seem like "the Pokemon artist" and not someone who did quite a lot for the OVA... nevermind other anime 😐} QuestioningEspecialy (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I've read through the page Iyashikei and it seems to be a completely made up term.

I've expressed my thoughts on its talk page. In short, in trying to find information about this term in Japanese-language internet, I've come completely empty-handed. This looks simply like one of the possible adjectives with which you can describe just about any slice-of-life anime, not a separate subgenre.

I expect that if this subgenre is real, it should have some coverage in reliable sources in Japanese, and not just on anime fans' clicks-aggregating sites and blogs.TinyClayMan (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is edit warring on Kayli Mills and 2024–present SAG-AFTRA video game strike. {{u|Seanlaraway}} has been misrepresenting sources, along with {{u|PrimaP0li}}, who began editing shortly after and making the same kinds of edits as {{u|Seanlaraway}}. Your input is appreciated at Talk:Kayli Mills#Edit warring on SAG-AFTRA strike and conflict of interest. lullabying (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)