Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Virus Manga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Virus Manga

Web comic, launched just months ago, still on its first issue (on hiatus). Doesn't show up on Alexa at all. Not yet popular; has not yet had time to become influential. Therefore: not notable.

Sure has nice art though. And this looks like a good-faith effort, not merely self-promotion. I wish them the best in their comic-creating efforts. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Try googling it. It was launched months ago, that's an age on the internet, and the manga is no longer on hiatus, the update reports all indicate it is an issue by issue manga not a page by week. It is already influential in Australia. I believe there needs to be recognition in the area of Australian Manga and thus this article deserves equal recognition with the webcomics already listed under the same categories. It is also much more appropriate clicking and finding an article rather than turning up a no result when in the Webcomics section.

No longer on Hiatus The manga is being updated and hence not on hiatus, and has a large following with offers from wirepop to make the Team bigger, and thus far is becoming influential in Australia due to effort and planning. Try googling it instead.

It is a personal belief that as a representative of the Australian Manga industry which is so often overlooked this entry deserves a right to remain in wikipedia.

    • I did google it - a grand total of 2 other sites link to kabukiyasha.net. I really like the artwork, but on that basis only a very small community of people are paying attention to the manga at this point. The other problem is that the only source of information about the manga is the website itself - this poses a problem in terms of verifiability. Delete. --Robert Merkel 05:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Webcomics are, in my opinion, not intrinsically notable. --Improv 04:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria for web comics at the moment, good luck to the artists though. Hopefully it'll qualify one day. —siroχo 08:39, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It would have to be pretty earth shaking as a webcomic to be notable in my opinion. Geogre 14:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but. I wish there was a suspend option. This particular comic has potential! Probably someone is going to have to rewrite the article from scratch sometime when the comic becomes more notable if it gets deleted, so I'd really like to just keep it floating around. Kim Bruning 14:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote keep for now. We can revisit this if those updates don't show next month. Gamaliel 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Webcomics that are only on their first issue, don't show up on Alexa, and aren't created by anyone famous for doing something else encyclopedic, are necessarily not yet notable enough for inclusion. However, I echo others' reservations. The art looks nice, the story seems interesting, and this article is well done. I urge the author to save a copy of it and return to post it again when notability can be demonstrated, perhaps in a few months or a year. Aside: most of the Google results for "virus manga" (English-only search, which inexplicably returns more results than the unrestricted one) are unrelated to this project; some are search engine bait, and some are talking about a French manga magazine, which means we should probably have some disambiguation if the article survives or when it is restored. —Triskaideka 21:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - it has potential :) Barneyboo 21:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • we don't keep things on Wikipedia for their potential to become notable, we keep them because they are notable. I--Robert Merkel 22:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --L33tminion 19:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Delete the manga page for copyvio. They don't seem to have given us permission to reproduce pages from their manga. Ashibaka ✎ 22:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair Use? Kim Bruning 23:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would say so. Only one fair use element cuts against this—it's a creative work that is being copied rather than a factual one. The other three weigh very heavily in favor of fair use: we're just reproducing a small portion of the webcomic and at a lower resolution, I would assume; we're not doing it for profit but purely for commentary, and there really is no way to really talk academically about a visual work without being able to show that work and refer to it; and finally, placing a small copy of one panel is not going to in any way supplant the market for the original webcomic. Postdlf 06:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:04, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Hmm, we should have some kind of backup for this kind of situation. If consensus becomes to delete, move to wikipedia namespace, or move to my talk namespace or so. Any idea where a better location might be? Kim Bruning 15:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)