Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanchu!


 * 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. Strong consensus that the article is not appropriate for user space. Kudos to KrebMarkt for taking this on, as requested the article has been userfied to User:KrebMarkt/sandbox/Amanchu! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Amanchu!

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (WP:BOP) Prod disputed by article creator with only one trivial source announcing the the series and two non-reliable sources (blog and webforum), which fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, on WP:BK alone. No notability per this guideline. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to userfy per KrebMarkt. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy on my user space. Way too soon to prove notability even in Japan with only one volume released there. I have little doubt that it will eventually pass WP:BK #1 and/or #3 but right now it doesn't so userfy. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy per KrebMarkt. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not userfy, delete The author has been blanking the page and has shown no interest in keeping the content. I have only undone the blanking because other authors have contributed content so it is not a candidate for CSD G7. I agree with the above assertions for delete. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 13:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize that the userfication was requested to a different author's userspace. I can agree with userfy in this case. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. May be worth using my search engine: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=amanchu!
 * Particularly good is the ANN launch article (Ain't it cool news seems to be drawing on the same source), and it's interesting that it's outsold established series like Eyeshield 21 or One Piece (or Summer Wars - didn't even know there was a manga adaptation for that). And then there are the innumerable Daily Radar, MangaNews, anime-vice, manga-sanctuary, AkibaBlog hits for Amanchu!, but though we use those sites in hundreds of articles I didn't see any specific discussions of whether they were notable. --Gwern (contribs) 16:15 22 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Thanks Gwern. I'm aware of all those data. Unfortunately none of them permit a clean & clear keep. I'm betting on an anime series adaptation within 3-4 years so it will pass a WP:BK #3 for notable adaptation. Knowing current Tokyopop slow pace of Aria manga release, i'm doubtful of Amanchu! being licensed in English in near future.
 * I should also correct you on the charts interpretation. The charts ranks books by weekly sells Amanchu! may outsell Eyeshield 21 and One Piece for that week but in cumulated/total sells both series outsold Amanchu! with 212K and 1,789K copies sold respectively. --KrebMarkt 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Eyeshield 21 eg. has been running since 2002; cumulative sales is a little unfair to Amanchu!. As for Tokyopop... well, I had to filter out a lot of scanlation and forums in the CSE - I think it went from a few hundred or thousand hits down to ~45 once I managed to get rid of them all. That's a pretty good early showing for a slice of life highschool manga with not the slightest hint of an English release. --Gwern (contribs) 16:28 22 January 2010 (GMT)
 * I meant this volume of Eyeshield 21 sold for 212K, not the whole series which should amount the millions. It was in the chart for 2 weeks consecutively: first week 165K, second week 47K (the week Amanchu! vol. 1 release), total 212K. I guess my English sucks so much i could not explain it clearly. --KrebMarkt 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't even occur to me to think that that Eyeshield volume had been out for a while. So I guess that's less impressive than it might be. --Gwern (contribs) 17:06 22 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Weekly sales charts are almost always useless because of this; those volumes of One Piece and Eyeshield 21 would have come out over a month earlier, and been in their fifth week on the charts. It did outsell Bakuman in it's second week, which is probably impressive for a first volume published in a niche magazine, but doesn't mean the sales are anything like even. Doceirias (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from the launch news (which suggests that some news sources think a new series by the author is worth reporting on) and the best-selling volume (which says popular but not yet notable), I've found nothing on this series. Given those sales and that the series pretty much is Aria distilled to a cordial, I have every reason to believe that it will be licensed/reviewed or adapted to an anime, but until then, it doesn't meet WP:BK. Userfy to the above volunteer's userspace. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We could also just merge it to the author's page. Her article isn't exactly bulging at the seams, and that would make what we have much more discoverable (and hence, editable) for everyone save the user to whom it was userfied. It's notable to her life inasmuch as it's her current fulltime job (I assume). --Gwern (contribs) 16:28 22 January 2010 (GMT)


 * Speedy delete, author has twice requested deletion and there are no significant edits from anyone else. You don't need a vote in an AFD to copy a page to your own user space, feel free to do it right now. There is no reason to keep this around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CSD:G8 doesn't necessarily apply to what could be a notable article, or at least, a sensible merge. The author may be venting more than seriously preferring it to be in his userspace, judging from edit summaries like 'In the end, your "TheFarix" will "die die" confirm want to "Nominated" this article for "deletion". Just delete it now..' --Gwern (contribs) 16:31 22 January 2010 (GMT)
 * KrebMarkt has been doing significant edits, actually. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as I mentioned in my original (struck out) !vote, I opted against CSD G7 earlier because there are content edits by other editors and others have expressed interest in expanding it. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time that I posted, the only significant edits by anyone other than the creator were made by someone who also proposed the article for deletion (and I missed the first G7 decline, because it said "A6 declined", I didn't see the correction). Deletion requests made in good faith should be honoured, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. Since there are no keep votes so far, I don't see the trouble. Copying to a user page doesn't require an AFD vote. Hairhorn (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let say it's for the sake of communication within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project so it would be good to leave a trace/notice that ABC editor has an userfyed copy of XYZ article and an interested editors are welcome to improve it so it will make back to mainspace someday. I always wonder on the Wikipedia Middle-Age internal communication, informations can days to reach you. --KrebMarkt 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It ranked high enough on the sales chart, to indicate its notable. Large numbers of fans buying something, is a far greater test of notability, than trying to find a review someplace for manga which are seldom reviewed anywhere at all.   D r e a m Focus  21:59, 27 January 2010 (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.