Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenity (manga)

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 — cleanup tags will be added as requested. Please take this as a wakeup call to rewrite this article and add sources. — Deckiller 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serenity (manga)

Serenity (manga) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article resembles an advertisement, most of the information is copied straight from the official website. -- Candy-Panda 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not notable, interesting or otherwise worthwhile for an encyclopedia.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - You are free to re-write article content if you feel it sounds like advertising. Killroy4 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Awful series, but doesn't need to be deleted. It needs to be moved again though because it's not a manga (it's manga influenced). I've moved it once in the past, but it looks like it was redone.--SeizureDog 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep. Comic series are notable (as long as they aren't webcomics or vanity press). Needs work to address the "reads like an ad" concerns, but that's not a criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — style of writing is not a criterion for deletion ➥the Epopt 15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As with every other article, need independent sources complying with WP:V and establishing notability to get to square 1, and the article creator is obligated to do this. We need to enforce these requirements fairly but firmly. Deletion can be reconsidered if sources are supplied. --Shirahadasha 18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Easy clean-up if you want it, sources can easily be made. If you really find it objectionable, tag it with rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clean it up. dposse
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be shown which assert notability. Seraphimblade 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A lot of people seem to be voting 'keep' on articles with no sources today. As it stands now, this article has done nothing to establish notability. If some valid third party sources are found I'd be happy to support a keep. --The Way 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There really isn't any notability guidelines for comics though... In any case, I think the first Christian "manga" (though it's not a manga) makes it noteable enough.[1] Plus, I think that any comic series sold on Amazon is important enough to include.--SeizureDog 08:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Notability requirements are the same for comics as for most things: we need multiple, non-trivial sources that make more than a passing mention to the topic in question. The source you cited (publishersweekly.com) may be a good one but it's a long standing precedent in AfD's that being on Amazon.com does not establish notability (since you can find virtually anything on Amazon.com). If you could find one or two more third party sources I'd change my 'vote' to keep. --The Way 08:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if Serenity was a manga (which it isn't), it wouldn't be the first Christian manga. Saint Tail has a religious theme, and it definitely predates Serenity.

"The story follows students in a private religious school, and while Saint Tail's stealing is sinful to her religion, she always asks for God's forgiveness before a caper." Sounds pretty Christian to me. Serenity is definitely not the first Christian comic either. --Candy-Panda 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Well, I would suggest Sales figures as a useful benchmark for Notablity, but other than marketing fluff describing it as America's premier Christian Manga, I haven't found anything. However, they are distributed by Diamond, so there may be some hard figures out there, and this source indicates [2] some other notability as they are sold in a lot of retailers. So I don't see notability as a serious problems. FrozenPurpleCube 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Farix (Talk) 03:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but re-title, removed all that is unsourced, and tag with whatever is needed to be cleaned up. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentAs AfD is not a vote, you may wish to state what you believe justifies this position. Seraphimblade 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Erm, ok, because as painfully retarded as this "manga" looks, people have found sources that would validate an article for this comic just within this AfD alone. Add those sources to the article, remove anything that doesn't have sources, and move on. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm still failing to see these sources? There are primary ones, granted, but those don't show notability. Seraphimblade 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I can copy the 50 anime articles send 'em to a vanity book publisher and get it on amazon.com as an anime guide book. Being listed on Amazon is not an indication of notability. One of my pet-peeves with anime and manga articles on Wikipedia is that there is virtually no enforcement of notability guideline for titles. As long as it's not published by a doujin group, it seems, a minor one volume manga can make it as an article. It's certainly not the first time manga has been used to present a religious belief. The Aum Cult, famous for the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo used manga to further their views. And it's certainly not the first christian manga (per this source.) We need some critical commentary on this series from multiple independent non-trivial sources. --Kunzite 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why has this been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions? This is not manga, people! I repeat, this is NOT MANGA! --Candy-Panda 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who cares? People can add stuff to a delsort page if the legitimately think it is of relevance to that area or "group" of editors, etc. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't care where this page ends up, the point is "Serenity" is not manga, and therefore shouldn't be called manga. Manga, in the western slang sense, means comics from Japan. To call "Serenity" a manga is misleading. Just as comics from Japan are called manga, comics from China are called manhua, comics from Korea are called manhwa, comics from America (or Canada, or the UK, or Australia etc...) are called comics, no matter what style they are in. "Serenity" is American-made, therefore it should be labelled a "comic" not a "manga". --Candy-Panda 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Whaps Candy-Panda over the head with a copy of Dramacon Vol 2. As if we really need one of the punch lines revisited in real life. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Been there, said that, got out voted. --Kunzite 03:30, 27 January 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.