Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 Sai Hajimete no H


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

17 Sai Hajimete no H

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A single anthology of 7 one-shot manga stories. No reviews can be found under the Kanji title. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:BK. And been prodded earlier, which is why I didn't add a new prod to the article. Farix (Talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete completely unnotable anthology of seven unnotable "one-shot" mangas. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of coverage by reliable independent sources. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is very rare that any manga gets any media coverage at all, therefor the notability suggestions/guidelines aren't reasonable for things of this type. Google gives me 15,300 for "17-sai hajimete no H" so a lot of people do read it, and talk about it online.  No official English release, so of course most of those probably just read the illegal fan subs for now(some do buy once an official release eventually comes around).  It was also published in a notable manga magazine, it surely popular with the thousands of subscribers, or they wouldn't keep it.   D r e a m Focus  02:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Manga must meet the same requirements as every other subject. We can't ignore the rules for over 2,000 articles on manga series just because you don't like the guidelines. In fact, it is a basic requirement that all subjects most have some coverage by reliable third-party sources. Notability is not inherited from the anthology it was serialized in, nor does the number of Google hits many anything. And continually making WP:ONLYGUIDELINE arguments in every anime/manga AFD isn't going to convince anyone. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? It has in the past.  Some articles are in fact saved.  Depends who is around at the time, and what they believe.  Make a decision for yourself people, and remember, the notability guidelines are just suggestions, not absolute laws.  Do you personally believe this is a notable manga?   D r e a m Focus  02:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about what we think is notable, its about what we can verify to be notable. That's why the notability guidelines exists. Otherwise, we would have a uselessly subjective standard that basically boils down to either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT !votes. --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop bringing this up in every single AFD. People decide on their own, through consensus, if something seems notable enough to keep in the wikipedia.  The guidelines are just suggestions, nothing more.   D r e a m Focus  11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as you keep bringing up IAR in every anime/manga-related AFD you are involved in, I will keep pointing out that you bring up IAR in every anime/manga-related AFD you are involved in. --Farix (Talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete That there has been no corresponding article on ja.wiki for nearly three years is highly worrysome for notability. – sgeureka t•c 11:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether something has an article on another wikipedia or not, should not be a reason to keep or delete it here. Perhaps the type of girls who read it, aren't really into the wikipedia, having some other sites designed for them to talk about their interest.   D r e a m Focus  11:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it should not decide the entire fate of an article, a manga/anime series not having a ja.wiki article is in fact a good sign something is not notable. Should the article be deleted because there is no ja.wiki article? No. Is it worth pointing out? Yes, as a ja.wiki article can lead to finding japanese sources, or additional content that can be translated. Not having one, doesn't exactly fill people with confidence. It's certainly not a worse reason to decide an articles fate then googlehits, scanlation sites, or "manga anthology=notable and popular" arguements. If anything, it has more weight. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It points to a lack of notability due to a paucity of Japanese language sources, which is a damning indication of its notability here. If there's no sources discussing it in its country of origin, it's highly doubtful there are the equivalent English sources here. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really now? So whenever a notable article is created, it wasn't notable until that very moment, otherwise it would already exist?  Is it possible there are articles out there, not yet created, which meet the nobility requirement, but no one has bothered to create them yet?  Just because something doesn't exist yet, does not mean it doesn't have the right to exist.  Is there any proof that all current articles deemed notable, of this type of manga, came into existence within a certain time period of their creation?   D r e a m Focus  01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If YOU believe the subject is notable, YOU need to provide the evidence in the form of reliable third-party sources. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time and borderlining on being disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasting everyone's time, is having the same argument constantly. You do NOT need any reliable third party sources, to save an article. The editors participating decide whether an article is notable or not. They can follow the suggested guidelines to help them make up their mind, or ignore it. I have stated my case that being featured in a popular manga magazine, and clearly having a significant number of fans online, makes this notable. You apparently disagree with that. Everyone else will decide on their own, and a consensus will be formed. That is how wikipedia works.  D r e a m Focus  02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Oh so very, very wrong. Verifiability (WP:V) is a key component of the five pillars that CANNOT be ignored, and it REQUIRES coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Any article that fails WP:V will be deleted regardless of those who say keep say. --Farix (Talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And your case relys on arguements that are completely disproved every time you use them. You are talking about how wikipedia works when it suits you, but when it doesn't suit you you dismiss it as not being good enough. Ridiculous. Don't participate in deletion discussions if you can't take notice of what is said by more experienced editors (such as farix) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The spirit of the rule is to keep the wikipedia from filling up with certain types of things(hoaxes, spam, original research, etc), which this is not. The spirit of the rule must be followed, not the word for word rule itself.  That is what the policy says.  To ignore all rules and use common sense.  I see bestselling novels nominated for deletion, despite being bestsellers.  According to the rules, they'd be gone, but usually we manage to save them.  Here we have something that is very well read in a popular manga magazine, as well as through other sources, and thus is a valid article in the wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT --Farix (Talk) 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the wikipedia article for Shōjo Comic, which publishes this, it was published weekly from 1968 until the 1980s, where it started to be published twice a month. Do you think a magazine would last that long, and be able to come out twice a month instead of just once a month, if it did not have a lot of readers?  Is there any reasonable doubt that a large number of people read this manga, and the magazine it is in? WP:Common Sense beats WP:wikilawyering.   D r e a m Focus  00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no proof. So your claim that there are reliable, third-party sources, which is a requirement for ALL articles, can't be verified. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BK; no sources indicating any notability whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (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.