Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nozomi Witches

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.

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nozomi Witches

a nn manga, anime. Google 922hit. BAVLO 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question— What is our standard for notability on manga & anime? Williamborg (Bill) 14:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as a production of a notable studio, Group TAC. Pretty much any anime or manga is "notable" enough for Wikipedia as long as it was major enough to be published by a major publisher. The same notability standards for TV shows and books apply. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong Keep as a bad faith nomination (the article has only been in existence for a couple days now), and there is plenty showing notability (48 volumes in the series makes it far more notable than many other series). This nomination was also BAVLO's very first edit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that BAVLO's only edits (there are three) were setting up this AfD. I suspect BAVLO is a sock used by someone who doesn't want to have this AfD tied to their real account. It's extremely unlikely that a brand new editor would even know that you could nominate articles for deletion, let alone be able to figure out the process without doing any other edits (like asking for help, for example). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP:FICT's default position is that all published fiction is notable unless they are fanfics, self-published, or published through vanity press. And since this is a 48 volume manga series with an OVA adaptation, it would be more notable then other manga. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-fatih nom. Bigtop 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per Nihonjoe. Ganryuu (talk)
• Keep with major disagreements on other reasons of keeping WP:FICTION says nothing of the sort. The policy on published fiction is under debate at Wikipedia:Notability_(books). I've seen a lot of crappy fiction books in libraries that collect dust on the shelves. Is every Harlequin romance notable enough for an article? No. Neither is every manga. I think this meets notablilty standards, but I think the article should do a better job of explaing how it does so. It should mention reception in the home country or sales figures. (I know they're hard to find for older manga like this one.) Perhaps it should be included inside of an article on the mangaka. --Kunzite 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think having 48 collected volumes indicates the reception in the home country was quite decent (and indicates sales were significant enought to keep the series going for years). That's longer than Dragon Ball (which had 42 volumes), so it was at least as popular. Like most sports manga, however, that popularity doesn't necessarily carry to other countries. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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.