Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1+2=Paradise


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

1+2=Paradise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Extremepro (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I couldn't find any significant coverage in English-language reliable sources, so I'm leaning towards delete. However, when running the Japanese article through Google translate, it mentions something that translates as "harmful comics uproar", and seems to have a source relative to that.  Perhaps someone who reads Japanese could look into that and see if you can find significant coverage in Japanese to support an article.  Also, I don't think WP:MOVIE is really very relevant to this article, as the primary topic is a manga (comic).  I'm also not sure if WP:MOVIE was intended to cover multi-episode direct to video releases (as opposed to feature films). Calathan (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a stub from a Japanese only work released over 20 years ago. Sold more than 200,000 copies for each of its 4 volumes. Toei Video did the animation, which is a major company. It was voiced by the leading actors of the time, including Yamaguchi, better known as the voice of Saotome, Ranma's father in Ranma 1/2. Though you might also known him as Kudo and/or Kaito Kid from Detective Conan. The anime was one of the few ecchi titles of the era, let alone from Toei. This article, and just about everything in the area suffers from a lack of coverage and care. Only the tokusatsu stuff from Toei Company is covered well - and that's a whole different issue. I much rather keep even the stubs than lose them when even the Anime Encyclopedia covers them - its not that any of the information is wrong, inaccurate or "not notable" because the entirety is deserving of an article because even Watanabe Junichi got his directorial start here. Real hard to explain how that matters when we are lacking an article on the right Watanabe... but do you expect TV shows from 20 years ago in Arabic to be covered well on En-wiki? I doubt it, but Angelo notability is not a criterion so please read the Japanese Wiki for more context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for lacking third-coverage by reliable third-party sources to pass WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Notability is not inherited from those who worked on the OVA, the studio that produced the OVA, or the publisher of the manga. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you are stating that selling 800,000 copies during its run makes it non-notable ASIDE from it being a key starting point for 3 individuals who worked on the adaptation included in this work and that it currently is recognized in the Anime Encyclopedia, but should not be covered on Wikipedia? Perhaps you do not understand this "inherited" aspect, but it is one of the few series of the era to push the envelope and has a presumption of non-English sources and Japanese Wikipedia coverage giving it a valid claim to notability. Unless you are planning to go to the NL and grab the pre-internet era reviews and works about it, than I think WP:NRVE covers the basics here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Selling 800,000 copies is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia.
 * A key starting point for 3 individuals is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia.
 * "One of the few series of the era to push the envelope" is not a standard of notability on Wikipiedia, and such a claim requires proof via reliable sources.
 * A presumption of non-English sources requires evidence that such sources exist. Funny that you cite WP:NRVE because NRVE states "that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". Yet you are telling us we should presume that such evidence exists without proof.
 * 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As the first comment, from Calathan, indicates, 1+2=Paradise is already noteworthy in the context of the governmental 'harmful' manga measures. A cursory online search reveals that it has been mentioned in English (Sharon Kinsella, "Adult Manga") and in Japanese (國文學: 解釈と敎材の硏究) academic literature in that context. It is a matter of checking -contemporary- print sources, which -like the two examples mentioned- may be accessible inside and outside Japan through University libraries, to expand on the article. The additional comments from ChrisGualtieri -about the sales figures and the involvement of notable staff- further reinforce the notability of the the series. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kinsella's Adult Manga has only mentioned the manga, and has not covered the manga significantly as required by WP:GNG. Sales volume is only an indication of possible notability of the subject. Extremepro (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way Kinsella mentions the work is significant. Not for the content of the work but for the context of its publication and its real world influence. Kinsella echoes what Takeuchi, one of his books is referenced in the corresponding Japanese article, and other Japanese writers indicate, such as the editors of the literary journal mentioned above and also Tomohiko Murakami. 1+2=Paradise is among those works which attracted scrutiny in the early 1990s from citizens (individuals and organisations) and lawmakers in Japan (local as well as national government) and thereby caused a change in the publishing industry as a whole. Including a change at Kodansha. There is enough of a background in that context alone, from the sources already mentioned in this discussion, to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. These materials are already sufficient to establish notability by themselves, enough to write a short article about 1+2=Paradise but they also indicate that additional -print- sources are available, it is matter of locating and citing them.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive the impertinence but I wonder If I might ask those who have so far dutifully logged this discussion in various locations if they have perhaps some of their own comments to offer on this topic? I'd like to add the information I've mentioned so far to the actual article and suggest that it might be prudent to offer some suggestions on the article's talk page in this context as well - for potential future editors - but am not inclined to do so with the deletion notice hovering at the top of the page, lest some other enterprising soul mistakes the article with the information included for the status quo from the time the deletion notice was placed and considers the article for deletion on that assumption. Am I correct in assuming that no trace of this discussion will be found on the article's talk page whenever this discussion is closed and filed somewhere else or perhaps deleted entirely? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not be discouraged by the deletion notice on top of the article. Information, especially sourced information, can be added at anytime during a deletion process. The closing editor (usually an admin) will review the general arguments given to see if there is a clear consensus to delete or keep the article. The article's state at the time will also be taken into account. If the decision is to keep the article or no consensus, then this entire discussion will be archived, with a link placed on the article's talk page. (See Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters) If the decision is to delete the article, then the discussion will be placed in the archives. (See Archived deletion discussions).
 * First thing to do now is to move the ANN ref to external links and to add Kinsella's book ref, along with other book refs to the article.
 * TL;DR: Add whatever you can and we'll decide after. Extremepro (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is an old manga & OVA, which of course due to the time it was made has very little references. But it is a notable and read/watched series.    Sintaku  Talk 23:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Extremepro, Thanks for the clarification and follow up edits. (I've removed the rest of my own comment here, it was already redundant when I posted it)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - now has enough refs. More are available, but are hard to evaluate/find due to only in Japanese/old.  The manga do have ISBN which meets one of the minimum requirements of WP:BK.  Another book discussing this anime is the volume with ISBN 1234819511 in the Manga - Manga Series of books. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book now meets WP:BK #1 and #4 (partially) (manga on the Japanese government's bad manga list - subject of 4 independent and reliable sources). Extremepro (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep References have improved enough to pass notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:48, 26 December 2013 (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.