Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayu Mayu


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ayu Mayu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not to be confused with Ayu-Mayu Theater, which is a spinoff of Rumbling Hearts, I could find no reliable third-party sources for this manga. Fails the WP:NOTE and WP:BK inclusion guidelines and the author doesn't appear to pass the WP:AUTHOR inclusion guideline and has no article. Deprodded on the claim that it exists and is available freely via illegal scanlations. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim of "illegal scanlation" is entirely that users opinion. My review of the website cited as reference in support of the series' notability appears to be genuine and valid.   They provide contact information, strict terms of use regarding copyright of submissions, a process by which material found to be in violation can be removed, and declare all works to be the property of their originators. Scanlation does not necessarily indicate illegal copyright violation. Further more copyright violation would not preclude notability, merely require the link to be removed from the page.  As a broad generalization, a work which is noteworthy enough that someone would want to steal it is likely noteworthy enough for a wiki entry.  WRFEC (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The website clearly is not distributing the work with the author's permission, so it is a copyright violation and a violation of WP:COPYLINK to use as a reference for existence. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I had a good chance to look at the site in question, it is clearly a renamed Onemanga.com, which is notorious for its copyright violations and has been targeted by the Japanese Digital Comic Association for pending legal action. FYI, Onemanga.com is already on the WP:BLACKLIST. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My reading of TheFarix' rationale was that your contest of the proposed deletion was on entirely spurious grounds that bear no relation to our policies and guidelines. Whilst that hasn't proven, from the above tangent, to be what TheFarix was in fact saying, it is nonetheless true that your rationale has no basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I suggest you familiarize yourself with, especially notability, which is not your subjective estimation of what is "noteworthy".  You've not made any argument for keeping that holds water.  If you want to make an argument that a closing administrator will give some credence to, then you should start citing reliable sources that document this subject in depth, independently of it.  Nothing less will do.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear by the forum posts at Onemanga.com that 100manga.com is a spin-off site get around Google Adsense's recent policy to pull all adsense ads form websites containing mature material. Onemanga.com and 100manga.com It also clearly hosts material in violation of the mangaka's copyrights and several of the mange hosted has already been licensed for publication to different publishers, such as VIZ Media, Tokyopop, Del Rey Manga, and Dark Horse Comics. Examples include Air Gear, Black Jack, Earl Cain, and Claymore. I seriously that all of these publishers would give this website permission to host content they are trying to sale in the North American market. And if they did, it would be widely announced at anime and manga websites like as Anime News Network. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails per notability, I can not even see a redirect here as it also fails WP:AUTHOR. The entire reference is ANN's encyclopedia which is user edited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree lets delete it. Its not important to us and of course that means its not important to anyone else.  And surely its references are questionable, afterall who trusts those "user edited" encyclopedias?  And oh the cost!  At the current rate of about $10 per gigabyte the continued storage of this 11676byte article will cost the wikimedia foundation upwards of 0.01 cents this year!  WRFEC (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I understand this article may be important to those who like the manga it currently does not qualify to be on wikipedia, maybe when the references are in place it will be. It is best to go with reliable references rather than questionable ones so people do trust wiki as a reliable source for info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To join in on the discussion, I regrettably pitch myself in with those in favor of deletion. Reading over the notability guidelines, I grind my teeth and admit that this article is not very notable. By the sheer volume of manga authored in Japan, really, this series is not a particularly significant contribution to its genre and art form. While I realize we can't find third-party references, I'm a bit curious as to why the (yes, illegal) scanlations are considered dubious. They seem to be the most reliable reference I can find (after typing in "Ayu Mayu -theater -scans -raw" into Google). I take it that we can't use them because of their legality? Danny Sepley (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct, per WP:SOURCES. They also fail WP:ELNEVER #1, so placing them in an 'external links' section is verboten as well. --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 07:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I transwikied the article and its entire history plus picture over to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Ayu_Mayu along with others currently at AFD. If you disagree with the suggested guidelines, why not go to the guideline pages and discuss changing them to something that actually makes sense?  Deleting articles that no one would find unless they were looking for them, and which hurt nothing by remaining, is just plain stupid, no matter what your excuse.  Its not a hoax, spam, vandalism, or whatnot, so no reason not to let it be.   D r e a m Focus  04:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as it completely fails both WP:N and WP:BK in that it has no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources (or even insignificant coverage). Having an ANN entry alone does not make a series notable, as ANN's Encylopedia section is not a reliable source and is user edited. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 July 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.