Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaworu Watashiya

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. Sr13 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaworu Watashiya

Kaworu Watashiya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article and the companion article on the book, do not assert notability nor provide references to support notability. I'm just not sure myself so it's here. JodyB talk 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [the story depends on the notability of the author and vice versa]:

Nymphet (manga) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) JodyB talk 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP ON BOTH ARTICLES Of course the novel and author are notable enough. The manga is currently the center of some controversy on whether it should be released in the United States and Seven Seas Entertainment is going to retailers telling them about it. Did you even check the referenes at Nymphet (manga)? And it's not a crime to give the author of the manga a stub; they are at least notable for the creation of this manga. And on top of that, the manga is becoming an anime in two months, and it's common for WP:Anime to create new articles on new anime. This is a joke right?--十八 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject does not meet WP:Notability requirements. While having a volume of published work the article fails to assert or establish any awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had. --Ozgod 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Do you even realize how many anime/manga that are in this encyclopedia that don't meet the requirments of "awards, praise, or impact their body of work has had"? WP:Anime was not only created to facilitate anime and manga pages, but it's there to create new pages as well, and this series' manga version is being translate into English! If that's not notable enough, then dare I saw about half of the articles under WP:Anime should be deleted then. And if you're just talking about the manga creator, if the manga page is kept, then wouldn't it be good form to create an article for the creator of the material, or did Wikipedia's standards change and now it's not okay to make a given article entirely free of red links?--十八 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am looking at the article (Kaworu Watashiya) from a standpoint of a biography of a living person - WP:BLP. The article does not establish the importance of the author other than to list a body of their work that is mostly red-linked. I should have been more clear on which one I was voting to Delete. I do not have enough knowledge of anime or manga to cast a decision on Nymphet (manga)
    So then what you are saying that even if the article on the manga doesn't get deleted, and the author does, then we should just delink to author's name in the Nymphet (manga) article and just say "Oh, well, this manga is notable, but the author isn't, so she doesn't get a page; don't worry about linking to the author in the future either because the article will just get deleted then." I say that if the manga article is kept, then that alone should justify the notabity of the author. And having stubs on Wikipedia doesn't go against policy. The author's page was just created yesterday. I was not aware that on Wikipedia all pages on living people had to be well-done a day after they were created.--十八 04:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nymphet (manga) - we do not have clear guidelines for comic/manga notability, but we can make a judgment call on a case-by-case basis. Having a manga collected into tankōbon, licensed in the USA, as well as adapted into an anime, makes it notable - a large volume of manga gets released in Japan every month, most never get adapted or licensed, and some may not even get collected. The manga also has an entry on ANN, the definite community source for anime and manga information. I'm not sure about the article for the author, so no comment on that part. If the notability of the manga establishes the notability of the author, then also keep Kaworu Watashiya --Darkbane talk 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This manga, and its writer, is now the subject of intense scrutiny in the anime world, with front page news feeds on animenewsnetwork, animeonline and animeondvd.com. Definately notable. Kyaa the Catlord 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on both. I don't know much about manga and the manga scene, but it's going to be a broadcasted anime. Considering how much money and time is put into making an animated show.. that's a pretty good indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for both. The manga being collected into tankōbon, its presence in the US, and being released as an anime definitely make it notable. By extension, the author becomes notable. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's see here... internationally published (or at least licensed) book series with an adaptation into television, and the writer of said book. Yeah, sounds like a textbook case of WP:BK notability to me. What more is there to say? Keep! --tjstrf talk 06:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep per Juhachi. --Masamage ♫ 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Because it has been licensed (and the license itself started some controversy just the other day), and it's being animated. You could a case made for some anime and manga, if you wanted to set a precedent and get rid of some of the articles that don't have any notability other than being on Japanese television... but Nymphet has received attention in the US and Japan; it's much more notable than most of these subjects. Granted, a lot of articles in this category don't assert notability, but it's tough to get Japanese sources and translate them, so that should be a priority over outright deleting them. Leebo T/C 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, looking at Anime News Network, just 2 hours ago they reported that Seven Seas decided to cancel the distribution of Nymphet in the US over the controversy. Leebo T/C 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ICv2 published this press release originally, which discusses the controversy behind the title and its relevance in Japan, and can be of use here in establishing notability for the articles in question. --Darkbane talk 13:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nymphet (manga) mainly on point 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (books)' criteria, which is the closest notability guideline that applies here. I'm not sure that Kaworu Watashiya can pass WP:BIO however. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    I think he passes (or will pass) creative 5, since his manga is being turned into a television program. (I don't like the wording there, personally, why just films? A tv series has the potential to be viewed by more people than a feature film.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I can't believe this was even nominated except that clearly the nominator doesn't like the title and sought to silence it from Wikipedia. It fails no notability guidelines for a manga. I would suggest that the title be reverted to "Kodomo no Jikan" now since it will no longer be released in the U.S. Rebochan 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that you are grossly mistaken. Please AGF. If I felt that way I would have tried to speedy it. JodyB talk 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment It's just painfully obvious that when a title with a lot of controversial press is the one that gets nominated over many other titles with less "notability", the nomination was done for spite and not out of concern for suitability for Wikipedia. Rebochan 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment It's a mistake to assume that just because other articles weren't nominated, but this one was, the editor is acting in bad faith. Many articles on Wikipedia shouldn't be here but are because nobody has yet gotten around to reviewing them. As far as the Nymphet (manga) article is concerned, it's possible that JodyB may have made a mistake in nominating it due to not being sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and not reviewing the article closely (as the manga's notability in this particular case does not depend on the notability of the author). --Darkbane talk 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Rebochan, try to remember to assume good faith and remain civil. What is "painfully obvious" to you may not be clear at all to others. I see nothing in Jody's messages that would imply malice or disregard. There's nothing wrong with starting a dialogue on something. I only became familiar with Nymphet last Friday when the controversy started to boil over. Leebo T/C 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Nymphet (manga) at least, although perhaps change the name back to Kodomo no Jikan. There has been quite a bit written about it over the past few days. If anything, the cancellation should be covered in more detail, since it's content based. — PyTom 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I also agree with the renaming at this point since it's unlikely to be released in English, at least for a while. Who knows if the anime may get licensed one day since anime tend to be of a lower key than manga due to broadcast restrictions on Japanese television. And yes, the controversy needs its own section.--十八 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment If we do reverse the anglification of the name, we should definately keep a redirect from nymphet since this is the name it was being presented as during the controversy regarding its content and the denial of its release by Seven Seas. Kyaa the Catlord 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Agreed, definitely reverse the name back to Kodomo no Jikan. Not only is Nymphet a bad name, but now the manga seems like it will never be released in English (at least in the US), and so the name does not apply anymore and will only serve to confuse people in the future. 71.175.20.87 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The controversial nature of this manga makes it notable enough. KyuuA4 21:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion has been going on for three days now. Can we close it and reach a conclusion? It seems that the majority of people are voting to keep the manga article, and thus the author becomes notable for being the author of a controversial series, right?--十八 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    It could go on for the remaining two days. No need to rush things on this. --Farix (Talk) 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In the light of recent discussions about the cancellation of this title for the US market it's definitely of interest for the general public. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles on mangas. Little-quiqueg 18:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's absurd and more than just a little underhanded to target this for deletion, of all things, when there are thousands upon thousands of articles on Wikipedia of the most inanely obscure things. All this is is a continuation of the attempt to silence this series and its fans. Talk about an agenda! 71.175.20.87 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please both of the subjects are notable for us to have yuckfoo 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I ask once more: Why has this not been closed yet?--十八 03:04, 4 June 2007 (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.