Talk:Petit Apple Pie

Notability
Exactly how does this not meet notability? There were 18 volumes published by a major publisher (Tokuma Shoten). There are two good sources for information. Given how old the series is, it's likely there are other sources available. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Length is not an indicator of notability. See WP:BK. It isn't licensed and more than two minor sources giving a list of who wrote for the series doesn't not constitute "significant coverage." -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you AnmaFinotera. Aside from that Japanese link at the bottom, there isn't much coverage here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If a series this old has two references as good as the two in the article, then there are bound to be others in offline sources such as magazines I don't have. The website is the most extensive website I've ever found on this magazine and several others. I've been able to check a large percentage of the information on the site, and everything I've checked has been verified. As a purely informational site, I've found it to be highly reliable. And Animage is one of the most reliable sources around for anime and manga information. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does that website actually meet WP:RS. Just being verified by you does not make it reliable. Who publishes? Who authors it? Where does the information come from? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a fan site, but it is as accurate and reliable for this topic as Nausicaa.net for Studio Ghibli-related information. The information comes observations of the specific magazines and anthologies covered on the site (since it's an informational site detailing facts about them, that makes sense). As I've said many times before, For series that old, it's damn near impossible to find online sources, and printed sources are very hard to find unless you live in Japan. I think I have a decent handle on what is and what isn't a reliable source, and at some point we have to make such determinations for older series where sources are harder to find. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But we have to consider that the current revision of WP:BK is far from complete. As it is, it doesn't provide guidelines for dealing with comic books, graphic novels, magazines, dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopedias, atlases, almanacs, instruction and notation books, librettos, instruction manuals and exam prep books. Anthologies aren't even on its radar. The Animanga Project once started a discussion on the notability of manga anthologies (see here), but it sort of meandered off... And I don't remember when it was decided that manga "licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan" are notable, but it seems too random a standard when the main guideline (WP:BK) can't even come up with one for comic books and graphic novels (which manga titles most definitely are).


 * Oh, and let me add: I find it hard to believe that an 18-volume anthology lacks notability.--Nohansen (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Apparently there are some who don't think a series that long from a major publisher is notable, though. Doesn't seem logical to me, but things here rarely are. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may not feel that Book is complete, but it is the currently accepted notability guideline for all books, including those you have listed. Whether its an anthology, manga, etc doesn't particularly seem like it should have special guidelines. If it is notable, any should be able to meet those criteria. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It can, but the sources are going to be much harder to find for the reasons I've already given. For older series, we can't just be rules-bots, blindly following everything to the letter. Allowances have to be made for article topics which appear to be notable, but for which sources are not as easily found. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)