This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
@Blaze Wolf: I disagree with you assessment that the article's notability is questionable. After all, there are currently six sources cited in the article. It has received significant coverage in six reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which establishes presumed notability per WP:GNG. While more sources would obviously be better, and the article does need work, I don't think it's fair to call it non-notable. As such, I will remove the notability template. If you disagree, please discuss here so we can come to a consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of sources mean nothing. Only two of those six are even vetted.
HITC hasn't been discussed but based on my own analysis seems to be of a similar level of source quality to Screen Rant, not usable to demonstrate notability.
The Mary Sue says barely says anything. It's basically "did you know you can watch this show?"
Cartoon Brew is unvetted but doesn't seem to have anything that leads me to believe it to be reliable. No credentials in sight for anyone but the founder, but the founder didn't make the article used here.
Yahoo Finance says "it's popular on the internet!" and says nothing else.
Know Your Meme is unreliable. Even if you say "it's written by editorial staff", the article is four sentences long.
The Beat is unvetted.
I find it unsafe to use any unvetted source (unless blatantly obvious) to demonstrate notability, so we are left with two sources. Of which barely say anything besides it was popular on the Internet. I tried to look for more sources myself, and there was so little that DeviantArt somehow popped up on Google News results for it. Even if The Beat was vetted, only one critical review would exist. I won't be taking this to a deletion discussion as I don't edit animation related subjects and there is a chances sources appear later on, but for now I've reinstated the Notability tag per WP:TOOSOON. This subject seems to be a WP:SIGCOV failure at this current point in time. NegativeMP122:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reliable sources (per WP:RSP) Yahoo! and The Mary Sue seems to be SIGCOV in my opinion. They dedicated an entire article to the series. They talk about plot, release, reception, and more. The title of the Mary Sue article is strange, but it goes beyond just telling where to watch it literally. Skyshiftertalk03:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter and Blaze Wolf: According to WikiProject Animation, Cartoon Brew is considered a reliable source, and I've seen it cited in other reliable sources such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I'd definitely say it's reliable, and I'm genuinely surprised there are people who think it isn't. Aside from the occasional blunder that virtually every reliable source makes once in a while, it's a pretty reputable news site. So that's WP:THREE in my opinion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two sources for this article which I'm not sure we should use it for this. The first one was from Ruetir which the source was explaining about everything you need to know about the series, but I also found that a user said that the source's website is blacklisted on Wikipedia and the second one was from In The Know which it explain why people are obsessed over it and everything else, but I found nothing so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto this to help contribute, I added a source from Forbes, editors please feel free to use it as I noticed it has not been used yet. I added in a bit of content from it on why it was so well-received (At least from the Forbes writer's perspective). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only certain Forbes sources. The one that keeps getting added is from a Forbes contributor which is deemed unreliable per FORBESCON which is linked above. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It quite literally just says "here's how to watch it!" and surface level things such as "there is only one episode so far", and does them in incredibly weird ways.
Wording it like "You don’t even need a YouTube account to watch the pilot. Granted, yes, the video has ads, but it’s a small price to pay for one of the greatest indie animated comedies to come out of 2023" makes me feel that this article was written to generate views. As the source isn't unreliable and can be used, I won't contest its use, but it should be a flat out failure of SIGCOV. NegativeMP105:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After some searching, I'd note the following additional sources, though they do not seem particularly strong.
Yesterday, I found this source from TheGamer which looks reliable to me because the website is kinda reliable so I added it to the article but someone removed it but why? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Synopsis
While Pomni as an avatar is female, I don't think it was confirmed she was a woman before entering the digital world, or that the same gender transfers over to the digital world. Pomni doesn't even remember her name before entering the digital world. It would be more accurate to confirmed details to describe her as "human" beforehand. --Meester Tweester (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My Bad, I thought @Meester Tweester talking about the Pomni when she enter the digital world but we all don't know what the gender for the human version of Pomni. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The show should not be listed as "surreal comedy". The only source for this is the description on Glitch's website calling it a "surreal dark comedy", but we can't say for certain that "surreal" is modifying "comedy" there. If there are no objections I will remove the surreal comedy category. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]