Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akumetsu

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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akumetsu

Akumetsu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't appear to be a notable manga. Artist, publisher, etc. are all red links, and despite multiple hits, I'm finding nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: the publisher and the magazine of serialization are notable publications: Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese manga publishers is startlingly weak, with big gaping holes like this. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The magazine where it's published, Weekly Shonen Champion, has an article in Japanese (ja:週刊少年チャンピオン) and also in Chinese. And, as can be seen here, several manga with articles have been published in that magazine. I know this AFD is not about the magazine, but since it seemed to me that it was implied in the rationale of the nomination that the notability of the manga is related to the lack of an article for the magazine, I think the above is pertinent. Also, the publisher is not a red link, it's just not linked. Here is the article: Akita Shoten. Cattus ^talk 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 18 volume series published by the fourth largest manga publisher in Japan; that means it was a hit. Which means it is notable. I recall the use of political violence in the book creating a bit of controversy at the time; may be able to dig up an article on that. Doceirias (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Not that it's hard to find, ja:アクメツ is the extensive Japanese Wikipedia article for the series, which ought to be minable for information. I've found evidence of there's a Taiwan edition, FWIW. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable release within a niche field. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Care to define 'niche field' for me? Protonk (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  I meant that it is a non-notable topic within an already not-that-major field (Anime/manga), and all-together it is too insignificant and unlikely to be extensively sourced. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I probably phrased that poorly. I would admit that this is probably not extensively sourced. However, anime/manga as a genre is about as widespread as a good number of other pursuits. I think calling it a niche field might unfairly diminish its apparent impact in the world. But I retract any implication that you were acting in any way apart from good faith. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're absolutely wrong about that! Anime and manga are some of the largest industries in Japan, and this series has garnered widespread attention there. That means it's worthy of our attention, even if you personally have never heard about it or don't care about it. It exists, it's successful, and people do in fact know what it is. As some other guy pointed out, the Japanese article is extensive and cites almost 20 sources. It is lazy to say an article is non-notable because we haven't gotten around to writing articles on the relevant publisher and so on. They do exist, and people do know about them - just not in the west. By the way, I'm all for keeping this article! 87.244.99.142 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  WP:ILIKEIT? The fact is, we are not on the Japanese Wikipedia, and the article isn't sourced. If you wish to source it, be my guest (WP:SOFIXIT). As it stands all these keep voters haven't found the time to source the article - I suspect because of the extremely minor impact it has had on the English speaking world and the unlikelihood of finding reliable sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  The guidelines are clear that notability has no language barrier. If it's notable, it's notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything of the sort. There's a difference between notability and reliable sources. I only said the sources that the Jap Wikipedia seems to have are not present here, and no one has bothered to add them - which I suspect is because of the severely limited appeal. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Given the series has not been licensed in English (or outside of Asia, that I can tell -- there is at least Chinese and Korean editions, plus one in Malasia though I can't tell if it's an import of the Taiwan edition or something separate), sources supporting notability are likely to not be in English. So: keep, tag for notability, and remand to WikiProject Anime and Manga for cleanup. If nothing comes of it in a few months -- though the facts Doceirias notes do indicate it must be notable -- revist. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (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.