Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadman Wonderland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rationale on talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadman Wonderland

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

Delete nn manga w/o sources written by redlinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Noting the fact that being written by editors without a user page is not a criteria for deletion, this article establishes no notability for the book and further violates WP:PLOT. No references, either. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not finding much of anything about this manga in English, which suggests that it just started serialization. The creators listed previously collaborated on the manga of Eureka Seven, so they're not total unknowns. Can anyone dig up something in Japanese to confirm the series status? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's pretty far along, especially for a monthly serial, to get no official notice, which suggests a certain lack of notability. OTOH, I've found a couple scanlation groups working on it simultaneously, which suggests a level of popularity in an extremely unreliable way. Can anyone find anything about licensing outside of Japan? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to reformat the article to something more acceptable. I was able to find some very basic information about the serial, but not enough to presume notability from. It do want to take issue with the nominator's "written by redlinks" comments. The fact that the writer and illustrator do not currently have articles is not a presumption of non-notability. All it means is that we don't have an article on them for one of many reasons not related to their notability, or lack thereof. --Farix (Talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This manga has been running for a considerable amount of time. I decided to start it so that it at least existed on Wikipedia and could be added to later by anyone, but I made it with the intention of expanding it soon after. It seems it has been added to, and I have edited it a bit further. Presumably this makes it eligible to avoid deletion. N-Denizen (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The cleanup done seems to have established reasonable notability. Doceirias (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Like most Japanese works of fiction, the availability of sources in English are hard to come by, so it's not surprising this was brought to AfD. Even if all we know is the publisher and past work done by the creators, I think that's enough for a longer grace period. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little conflicted about this one: there's been a fair amount of work put into the article since the AfD, but very little of it demonstrates notability. But as Ned Scott says, sources are such that it would be difficult to find those quickly. (BTW, as noted above that the article or the series was written by users without userpages or creators without articles is a highly spurious deletion argument: manga coverage on Wikipedia is still very spotty -- there are many creators of highly notable works that don't have even stubs yet, and ditto the works.) (These being award-winning serials running continuously since the 1970s.) So mark me down as weak keep to give editors some good-faith time to find better sourcing. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is much like many other manga pages that are accepted by Wikipedia. It has enough information to be useful to the reader, and the format is easy to add to. It has no need of deletion anymore. N-Denizen (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even the original creator of the article stated in an edit summary that the work is too obscure and unknown to have a proper reception section.[1] However, the notability of this work depends heavily on such a section, or similar section using third-party sources, being written. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Reception sections for untranslated manga are nigh impossible to find, and have never been a requirement for anything below a B rating. Doceirias (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But apparently, it's not notable in Japan either, at least to get any coverage over there. And I'm not about to assume that it is automatically notable because potential sources are WP:NOTENGLISH. --Farix (Talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Other than a Japanese wikipedia page? I've almost never seen any coverage for anything beyond top selling manga by reputable sources. There just isn't a reputable online press dealing with manga. I think a manga by a major publisher by creators who have had work translated into English (Eureka 7 was, right?) is more than enough to satisfy notability requirements. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This work doesn't inherited notability from its creators. It still has to pass WP:BK or WP:NOTE on it's own like every other manga. The only manga that I know would could a free pass by WP:BK are those created by Osamu Tezuka because he is had huge historical impact on on both anime and manga industries. --Farix (Talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see many articles on wikipedia which fall under your reasoning for deletion, and not all of them have Reception sections. They aren't deleted, and do not need to be deleted. Why should this article be an exception? N-Denizen (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Citing the presents of other articles that may fail the notability guidelines is not grounds to keep other articles about non-notable subjects. Especially after you admitted in that edit summary that the work was not notable. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not designed as a defense for someone arguing a set of standards significantly harsher than standard operating practice. I've seen a number of books with similar claims to notability survive deletion uncontested, and am baffled as to why you've suddenly decided to move the goalposts. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The goal post hasn't been moved, but that we really haven't been looking to see if we were clearing the goal post in the first place. Also, unlike other nominations, we have a clear assertion that the work is non-notable work. Your argument also reminds me of the ones used to defend episode articles that also don't have third-party sources from which we can presume notability. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know it does. I think we'd be using basically the same language no matter which end of the line of reasonableness we were on. Frankly, I think if something is notable on the Japanese wikipedia, then it is notable enough to get an article here. Doceirias (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Deadman Wonderland is published in Shonen Ace, has Two released volumes, is created by the author and illustrator of a manga of another known series. It has had attention from various people, as proven at least by the japanese wikipedia article - I could list other people, but they most likely would just be rejected as not reliable enough. Farix, You focus on the fact that the reception section was unnecessary, as if somehow because I can't dredge up unneccessary information that simply proves people read it, we should delete an entire article. This article was marked for deletion because it barely had any information to begin with. It's been fleshed out to an acceptable standard now, and yet you insist on scrutinization of it, but not to let it stay, but to be deleted. Is this truly the correct attitude to take? Frankly, I think this discussion is tired and little more than picking at particular statements, and if there are no more dimensions to add to it, we should just end it. Many say Keep, so let's keep it. N-Denizen (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This series is published in Shonen Ace, and by notable mangaka. The series has no official presence in English at this time, but that is not a prerequisite for notability, just an undeniable proof of it. (The time someone tried getting the articles on Saint Seiya deleted jumps to mind here.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Saint Seiya, though, has more clear-cut notability, having been adapted as anime (thus clearing WP:BK in one hurdle), spawned several derivative series, been reissued several times, been licensed in multiple languages, and been cited by many other mangaka as influential. Not everything in Shonen Ace is automatically notable, just as not everything published by The New Yorker is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:01, 28 February 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.