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.
I'm not sure if product reviews are sufficient to establish notability, and whether or not they serve as verifiability indicators would depend on the website; as sources, they should contain enough of a translation to demonstrate that they verify the material. Miniapolis (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the French web site linked (that have reviews) are considered reliable at WP:A&M/I witch is why I voted weak keep. I should also note that sources do not have to be in English. – Allen4names02:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Reviews by two reliable sources are barely sufficient to show notability. While I don't personally have much knowledge of French anime/manga websites, the two in question have been discussed before and have been determined to be reliable (see WP:A&M/I). Calathan (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep As far i can tell, MangaNews & MangaSanctuary are likely the #1 & #2 in numbers of visitors in French speaking anime & manga websites. In addition both provide official previews of upcoming and just released manga, and MangaNews hosts an official anime streaming service. Acknowledgement by readership/viewership and by the French professionals in Manga/Anime field => Give their staff reviews a modicum of WP:Weight. Now for Animeland series of very short reviews, Animeland is first a 20 years old anime/manga dedicated paper magazine, usually a review in the paper issue ends up into a way shorter version in their website. One may argue that those are French reviews and not English ones, per WP:BIAS it doesn't and for what's worth France is still the #2 country for numbers of sold manga after Japan. --KrebMarkt (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nominator): I keep hearing about all these sources and how they meet the RS guidelines; however, as of today (March 21, 2012) none have been added to the article. This, I've found, is all-too-characteristic of AFD discussions; external links are peppered throughout the discussion to fuel the !voting, but the articles themselves continue to be un- (or poorly-) sourced. Winning the "dispute" seems to trump actual editing. Miniapolis (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.