![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I believe this article is unnecessary and incomplete, since New Angel is merely the second OVA adaptation of the manga Angel by U-Jin, which in fact has a lot more relevance since it has produced two OVA series, two adult films, a video game and has two manga sequels, one of which is currently ongoing. Beside, perhaps the most important point of Angel is the controversy that arose in Japan as a result of its original publication. From this article I would only keep the intrawiki links and a reduced form of the episodes summaries, which should go in the Japanese episode list template that's in the other article. Jfgslo ( talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think it's going to take a lil more than that? I'm not familiar with the series, but it seems the series has 5 episodes and only has 2 in full detail. no development at all and only citation seems to be reception.there was a similar discussion about this in the video games, but were much more strict about it. Plus i know we're not suppose to be using WP:OTHERSTUFF, but fullmetal alchemist covers alot of reception, and development in the main article that could arguably be able to be split, but considering it helps it gain GA status, then we should be doing the same. I'll be fixing the format of the Angel (manga). i think we can preserve this, until it's notable, but reception alone isn't going to help it be kept. Bread Ninja ( talk) 08:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Significant, is a matter of question. only reception can't be the only thing. Like i said, a good example, fullmetal alchemist. Which each anime has had significant coverage. But right now, this could easily be merged. And significant coverage? it has to justify the entire article, not just one section. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
how is it flawed? comapred to Angel (manga) and Fullmetal alchemist, the only thing hats difference is quality, but both have a large ammount of media relating to one thing. And Why is reception the only thing to make it sufficiently notable? there was a big discussion not to long ago, that proved that wrong. no they don't have to be high quality, but the GNG applies to the entire article, not just one section. otherwise, it might aswell be one. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If hentai series don't have all that much coverage, than all the more reason to. just because the genre isn't well known to the entire world doesn't mean we should give it excuse. And you say the same thing, but not really budging me on this one unelss you expand what you say. why just having a reception (a small one) justify the entire article? Bread Ninja ( talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I believe this article is unnecessary and incomplete, since New Angel is merely the second OVA adaptation of the manga Angel by U-Jin, which in fact has a lot more relevance since it has produced two OVA series, two adult films, a video game and has two manga sequels, one of which is currently ongoing. Beside, perhaps the most important point of Angel is the controversy that arose in Japan as a result of its original publication. From this article I would only keep the intrawiki links and a reduced form of the episodes summaries, which should go in the Japanese episode list template that's in the other article. Jfgslo ( talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think it's going to take a lil more than that? I'm not familiar with the series, but it seems the series has 5 episodes and only has 2 in full detail. no development at all and only citation seems to be reception.there was a similar discussion about this in the video games, but were much more strict about it. Plus i know we're not suppose to be using WP:OTHERSTUFF, but fullmetal alchemist covers alot of reception, and development in the main article that could arguably be able to be split, but considering it helps it gain GA status, then we should be doing the same. I'll be fixing the format of the Angel (manga). i think we can preserve this, until it's notable, but reception alone isn't going to help it be kept. Bread Ninja ( talk) 08:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Significant, is a matter of question. only reception can't be the only thing. Like i said, a good example, fullmetal alchemist. Which each anime has had significant coverage. But right now, this could easily be merged. And significant coverage? it has to justify the entire article, not just one section. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
how is it flawed? comapred to Angel (manga) and Fullmetal alchemist, the only thing hats difference is quality, but both have a large ammount of media relating to one thing. And Why is reception the only thing to make it sufficiently notable? there was a big discussion not to long ago, that proved that wrong. no they don't have to be high quality, but the GNG applies to the entire article, not just one section. otherwise, it might aswell be one. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If hentai series don't have all that much coverage, than all the more reason to. just because the genre isn't well known to the entire world doesn't mean we should give it excuse. And you say the same thing, but not really budging me on this one unelss you expand what you say. why just having a reception (a small one) justify the entire article? Bread Ninja ( talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)