Talk:The Ring Volume 0: Birthday

Untitled
Recently this article was redirected to the Film adaptation, Ring 0: Birthday. The Ring 0: Birthday Manga and Ring 0: Birthday Film are two separate versions and should be treated as such. Gsuademola (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion
I would like to open discussion in regards to this article's nomination for deletion. In hopes of saving this article from deletion I am requesting help in improving it and bringing it up to Wikipedia standards, a under construction tag was added to postpone deletion so I and others are given time to work on the article. I will address the issues brought up in the deletion tag, such as; improving syntax and sentence structure, copyediting, and providing proper citations. Gsuademola (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All issues brought up in the deletion tag have been addressed and the Article is distinct enough to stand alone. Gsuademola (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood the proposed deletion tag. The only complaint that the person who placed the tag had was that he thought the article was redundant with the article for the movie.  All the information about copyediting and the like are just part of the proposed deletion tag, not specific complaints about this article.


 * That being said, this article still has a major problem, namely that there aren't any sources that indicate how this manga passes the notability requirements for Wikipedia ( see WP:N). In order to pass the notability requirements, the subject must have significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject.  For books and manga, that is most often accomplished by citing at least 2 reviews of the book from publications or websites that have editorial oversight.  Sources such as forums or user submitted content of websites (including user reviews) are not usually considered reliable sources, and shouldn't be used in the article at all.  Sources like the manga itself and the publisher's website are fine for confirming information about the manga, but can't be used to show notability of the subject.  Unless you can find at least two reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this article may still be deleted.


 * Another issue with this article right now is that it is all a plot summary. A good article on a fictional work should include a plot summary, but should primarily be about the real world significance of the work.  You should probably read Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) if you want to write an article that meets the style guidelines. Calathan (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing light to the situation, I was not sure how I could waive the article's deletion status. Gsuademola (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes of Construction
After my first wave of edits there are inconsistencies between the first paragraph and the two following paragraphs, rest assured; the issue will be addressed today. Gsuademola (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanded the plot summary, introduction, and heading. Properly cited 2/3rds of sources, corrected grammatical errors, added hyperlinks, corrected spelling. Things to do: Finish expanding the plot summary by adding to the conclusion and making note of the manga's climax, properly cite the remaining sources, remove the deletion tag, and remove the under construction tag. Gsuademola (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Article's summary is a few sentences short of climax and a paragraph away from resolution, I will not be able to complete the summary tonight but I will expand the "Powers of Sadako Yamamura" section with proper citations. Gsuademola (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Article has been brought up to Wikipedia standards. Gsuademola (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)