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.
Fails
WP:GNG. Also, note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources (i.e. illegal scanlations) overwhelm any reliable sources which at the same time lack any kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG. At best, it will become automatically notable in the future should it get an anime adaptation. For now it was simply created
WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted or usefyed until a more suitable time.
Note: I suggest that the closing admin thoroughly read the arguments below before making a decision, the WikiProject sees this happen less and less for debates of this kind.
KirtZJ (
talk)
23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: It looks like it did get a motion comic with full voice acting, so there's that. I'm finding some sourcing, but I'll have to get someone fluent in Japanese (I just use Google Translate) to really check.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep - Firstly, I wish to state that "[...] note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources overwhelm any reliable sources" is a false statement as just because an article has no coverage in English does not mean it has no coverage in Japanese -
WP:NONENG applies. That being said though, there doesn't seem to be much coverage in Japan either - there is
this,
this and
this, though whether they count anything towards notability I cannot say, as I'm not able to read in any language other than English.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Satellizer: I also found
[1] When looking for reliable sources I find that Wikipedia Japan helps and by looking at their entry on the manga it looks like it is only primary sources for external links. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
In all honesty, the Japanese Wikipedia (along with 99.9% of other Wikipedias) has much looser requirements and a higher degree of tolerance with lack of sourcing when compared to the English version. It's not uncommon for Japan-exclusive products, such as video games (a topic I'm used to editing) have no corresponding article whatsoever or it being in much poorer condition that its English-language counterpart. Though in this case I completely agree with you as there is a noticeable lack of RS, with the (possible) exception of the three I pointed out above. Thanks,
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You shouldnt really take what I said out of context. Searching Google throws up a host of illegal scanlations—which is what I meant and doesnt give any weight to keeping this page. At any rate, I dont see anything notable about this page for an English article even if it exists on other language Wikipedia(s) which are more lax when it comes to policy.
—KirtZMessage19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The relevant point is that the preponderance of scanlation sites also doesn't give any weight against keeping the page, since the same is true for series that do unquestionably pass GNG. It may simply show that you're bad at Googling. --
erachimatalk20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Semantics. Apologies if I wasnt clear. All I did was do a quick google search and found no uniqueness for notability. You feel free to do a more in-depth search. Keeping the article based solely on the reason that it has published volumes (as shown by some of
Satellizer's Japanese sources) is hardly compelling though.
—KirtZMessage21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Just as a matter of clarification though I'll say that what I thought you meant was "since this manga is not available in English, there won't be coverage by reliable sources and thus would be overwhelmed by fan sources". Thats more of a differing interpretation than taking things out of context.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Thats not a good argument. Just because (questionably) reliable sources exist on the page does not mean that their content makes the series notable.
—KirtZMessage02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That is a good point even if the sources are reliable it does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable since the coverage could be trivial (ie a regurgitation of a press release etc). Can anyone who knows Japanese look at these sources and weigh in on whether or not the coverage is significant enough?--
67.68.22.129 (
talk)
03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:BKCRIT. No independent mentions, The MyNavi.jp is just a news report that it was adapted into a motion comic, which could have been a press release. Article really needed to be developed at
WP:AFC first. The mantan web one is a dead link. One of the books did reach number 33 on Oricon, but that counts as a passing mention for notability purposes. Rest are publisher-based primary sources. -
AngusWOOF (
talk)
03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Prima facie, this is at least a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published and therefore ought not to be deleted whilst the article on that magazine exists (WP:R).
James500 (
talk)
20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I do not think that "probably" is good enough. I think that if you want this deleted now, you should include the magazine in this nomination.
James500 (
talk)
20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
This "ridiculous creation" could have been dealt with in a matter of seconds by means of a blank and redirect, if that is necessary. I can't see how salami tactics can be compatible with WP:R.
James500 (
talk)
00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Normally, comments aren't removed from AFD discussions, but are crossed out when retracted. I guess in theory both you and KirtZJ could have decided to entirely remove those comments, but you aren't supposed to remove someone else's comments, so you or I couldn't remove his comments above.
Calathan (
talk)
18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Until there are reviews or other significant coverage, this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria described at
WP:NOTE or
WP:NBOOK. Just because it is being published by an English language website does not automatically mean that it will meet the criteria. Assuming that reviews are to come is also a case of
WP:CRYSTAL as there is a possibility that the manga won't be reviewed. For example, the Arpeggio of Blue Steel manga did not receive any reviews until afterSeven Seas Entertainment licensed it and released the first volume this past month dispiriting all current chapters being online publication by Crunchyroll since January of this year. —Farix (
t |
c)
02:01, 3 September 2014 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:GNG. Also, note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources (i.e. illegal scanlations) overwhelm any reliable sources which at the same time lack any kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG. At best, it will become automatically notable in the future should it get an anime adaptation. For now it was simply created
WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted or usefyed until a more suitable time.
Note: I suggest that the closing admin thoroughly read the arguments below before making a decision, the WikiProject sees this happen less and less for debates of this kind.
KirtZJ (
talk)
23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: It looks like it did get a motion comic with full voice acting, so there's that. I'm finding some sourcing, but I'll have to get someone fluent in Japanese (I just use Google Translate) to really check.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep - Firstly, I wish to state that "[...] note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources overwhelm any reliable sources" is a false statement as just because an article has no coverage in English does not mean it has no coverage in Japanese -
WP:NONENG applies. That being said though, there doesn't seem to be much coverage in Japan either - there is
this,
this and
this, though whether they count anything towards notability I cannot say, as I'm not able to read in any language other than English.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Satellizer: I also found
[1] When looking for reliable sources I find that Wikipedia Japan helps and by looking at their entry on the manga it looks like it is only primary sources for external links. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
In all honesty, the Japanese Wikipedia (along with 99.9% of other Wikipedias) has much looser requirements and a higher degree of tolerance with lack of sourcing when compared to the English version. It's not uncommon for Japan-exclusive products, such as video games (a topic I'm used to editing) have no corresponding article whatsoever or it being in much poorer condition that its English-language counterpart. Though in this case I completely agree with you as there is a noticeable lack of RS, with the (possible) exception of the three I pointed out above. Thanks,
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You shouldnt really take what I said out of context. Searching Google throws up a host of illegal scanlations—which is what I meant and doesnt give any weight to keeping this page. At any rate, I dont see anything notable about this page for an English article even if it exists on other language Wikipedia(s) which are more lax when it comes to policy.
—KirtZMessage19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The relevant point is that the preponderance of scanlation sites also doesn't give any weight against keeping the page, since the same is true for series that do unquestionably pass GNG. It may simply show that you're bad at Googling. --
erachimatalk20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Semantics. Apologies if I wasnt clear. All I did was do a quick google search and found no uniqueness for notability. You feel free to do a more in-depth search. Keeping the article based solely on the reason that it has published volumes (as shown by some of
Satellizer's Japanese sources) is hardly compelling though.
—KirtZMessage21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Just as a matter of clarification though I'll say that what I thought you meant was "since this manga is not available in English, there won't be coverage by reliable sources and thus would be overwhelmed by fan sources". Thats more of a differing interpretation than taking things out of context.
Satellizer(´ ・ ω ・ `)22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Thats not a good argument. Just because (questionably) reliable sources exist on the page does not mean that their content makes the series notable.
—KirtZMessage02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That is a good point even if the sources are reliable it does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable since the coverage could be trivial (ie a regurgitation of a press release etc). Can anyone who knows Japanese look at these sources and weigh in on whether or not the coverage is significant enough?--
67.68.22.129 (
talk)
03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:BKCRIT. No independent mentions, The MyNavi.jp is just a news report that it was adapted into a motion comic, which could have been a press release. Article really needed to be developed at
WP:AFC first. The mantan web one is a dead link. One of the books did reach number 33 on Oricon, but that counts as a passing mention for notability purposes. Rest are publisher-based primary sources. -
AngusWOOF (
talk)
03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Prima facie, this is at least a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published and therefore ought not to be deleted whilst the article on that magazine exists (WP:R).
James500 (
talk)
20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I do not think that "probably" is good enough. I think that if you want this deleted now, you should include the magazine in this nomination.
James500 (
talk)
20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
This "ridiculous creation" could have been dealt with in a matter of seconds by means of a blank and redirect, if that is necessary. I can't see how salami tactics can be compatible with WP:R.
James500 (
talk)
00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Normally, comments aren't removed from AFD discussions, but are crossed out when retracted. I guess in theory both you and KirtZJ could have decided to entirely remove those comments, but you aren't supposed to remove someone else's comments, so you or I couldn't remove his comments above.
Calathan (
talk)
18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Until there are reviews or other significant coverage, this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria described at
WP:NOTE or
WP:NBOOK. Just because it is being published by an English language website does not automatically mean that it will meet the criteria. Assuming that reviews are to come is also a case of
WP:CRYSTAL as there is a possibility that the manga won't be reviewed. For example, the Arpeggio of Blue Steel manga did not receive any reviews until afterSeven Seas Entertainment licensed it and released the first volume this past month dispiriting all current chapters being online publication by Crunchyroll since January of this year. —Farix (
t |
c)
02:01, 3 September 2014 (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.