Talk:Wanted (manga)

Delete?
I strongly believe that the page on Matsuri Hino's WANTED manga should not be deleted. First of all, it is a fantastic book that captivates the readers. They might want to search more on it on Wikipedia, so having a page on the site would be very useful. Also, since it is a three chapter book, not much information is presented, but that still does not mean that it is a not well written book that should not be recognized. Lastly, I do not have much time on my hands. The page was said to be deleted because it was too short. It was too short to start with since it was my first time in creating a page- I still didn't get the hang of it yet. I'm sure that other people, and myself, will contribute more to WANTED's page in the future, so it shouldn't be deleted. Thanks for your time :] Siyanal (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because "it's a fantastic book that captivates the readers" doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. It doesn't have that much info... Moocowsrule (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule


 * I really wouldn't delete it either. It's very relevant for alot of Vampire Knight fans who like to inspect Hino's popular works and make comparisons. I have checked this page around 4 times without even having read the manga yet just for background info.
 * Wikipedia makes manga accessible - if the lack of info is that big an issue then I'm sure we can get some Hino fans off the forum to update it. 86.5.101.18 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Um just because a lot of Vampire Knight fans like it doesn't mean it's relevant to Wiki. It has to be covered by relevant sources ,which there are NO references in the ENTIRE article, ∴ it should be deleted. Moocowsrule (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule


 * Plus Wikipedia makes manga accessible - if the lack of info is that big an issue then I'm sure we can get some Hino fans off the forum to update it. is not Wikipedia quality. Moocowsrule (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule


 * This is a ridiculous excuse for deletion. How can anyone ever find out about a lesser known title if an encyclopedia that's supposed to do just that deletes every little page that might not immediately be up to the ridiculous deletionists' insanely high standards? With your argument you may as well just delete everything that doesn't manage to become a massive entry overnight, heaven forbid people take time and add to it slowly. Tasogare (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its simple. If the title has NOT received coverage by multiple-reliable sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This IS an encyclopedia, not a place to find out about every last manga title in existance. It has nothing to do with it becoming a "massive entry" but whether the sources exist at all. This far, no one has provided a single reliable review or any other relevant sources that would meet the WP:BK notability guideline. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And exactly what are you suggesting is done, then? It's utterly insane to have a list of an author's works on their own page, but to completely refuse to provide any information whatsoever on any of those titles just because it, again, doesn't fit your ridiculously inane deletionist criteria. It has a licensing announcement, it has a page on the largest anime news site on the internet, what in god's name are you looking for?! Tasogare (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Being licensed is not a notability criteria here, nor is it being listed on ANN when 99% of all anime/manga are listed there. Just because it exists and was printed does not make it notable, or does every work by a notable author deserve its own article just because they wrote it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then, if it hasn't been covered by relevant sources fair enough. 86.5.101.18 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Since the discussion above actually started long before it was tagged for notability issues, this is an official discussion on whether the article should be redirected to Matsuri Hino's article, as it fails WP:BK and WP:N. This far, only two reviews have been found for the series, on at Comic Book Bin and one Teen Reads. It has not been reviewed by AoD nor ANN, nor any other reliable source that I can find. That is not enough to meet the notability guidelines, and should be redirected. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We've seen how you "merged" Akane-chan Overdrive, so in light of that I'd be quite opposed. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...IP socks? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Searching the German title Pirat gesucht!, I quickly finds this AnimePro review (they're the German equivalent of ANN). More I hope later. But that puts us to three reviews right there, which means it looks notable to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, Animanga.de has also noticed it, and I had thought they were reliable, but the site seems to have been blacklisted, preventing me from linking it or the machine translation. Huh. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for another English review, it was reviewed by Otaku USA (text not online), which makes it three just in English. Notability now clearly established, oppose merge. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pop Culture Shock short Review Mania Review Comics Village Review Copy-paste from the WT:Anime ;) --KrebMarkt 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Given it passes WP:BK, any arguments for merging? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be a no. Article will not be merged (at least, at this time). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)