Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baggataway (manga)


 * 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   userfy to User:Scchan/Baggataway (manga). Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Baggataway (manga)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable manga Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am not sure -- Notability rules -- here in Wikipedia. There is indeed a Japanese page for the same title, and my knowledge to this title originally are through the Japanese Wikipedia pages, and then I go out to find out more information about the tile and reading it myself.

I am new around here (at least actually in terms of editing articles). I do welcome any recommendations and advice in making pages better and informative.

Scchan (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I will try work on more information for the title. My information comes from directly reading the original and web search (simply I have no other alternative except the original source on my bookshelf). It will be a lie to say the specific title is top hand popular titles, but it is supported by a major manga publishing company, and is released in language outside of its original language (just not English). The question is patronage by a major publisher justifies notability, and I think that is debatable depending who you ask. For sure, there exists lesser known titles in Wikipedia.

Another important point is the title being Lacrosse outreach. In the original text of the work, it is literally said within the work that one of the objective of the work itself is the popularization of Lacrosse in Japan.

While I understand it is limits of Goggle-search stuff, may I suggest a Japanese search of the title? May be this: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%E3%83%90%E3%82%AC%E3%82%BF%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%82%A4&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=2fbbce52d84f2fa0 will help? Scchan (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I fail to mention I was the primary author. Please excuse me. (I added some more information the the AfD page.

Scchan (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy - I've done a little searching and haven't been able to find any coverage on this work.  Unless we can turn up coverage by reliable sources (for example: reviews) it doesn't meet the general inclusion guidelines.  Alternatively, if there's some chance that it will be published in English, you can keep the article in your userspace and wait for more sources to become available.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that it will be licensed in English. Sports anime/manga has never done very well. Even the really big titles, such as Slam Dunk and Eyeshield 21 have struggled. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of coverage by reliable third-party source, therefore failing WP:NOTE and WP:BK. The two blog reviews are not reliable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in two different languages, multiple collected volumes published and sold, and is an ongoing series within a notable magazine.  D r e a m Focus  12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being translated into different languages doesn't making a work of fiction notable. In fact, it was rejected as a criteria for WP:BK. Nor does being serialized in a magazine. The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga published within it and vise versa. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As a fair handed argument from the original author - I do have to agree sports title does not do well in English, so it is unlikely to see it released commercially in English. I do generally look at sports title in a somewhat different perspective - I grew up in Asia, where sports title does far more successful.

I think the question really down to if a title that does appear to do alright in Japan. I try not to cite blog and other Internet reviews excessively, there are customer reviews on Amazon Japan site too much; but I could have cited more if I really wished such blog/customer review more if I really wanted to. It is not a big title, underrated - possibly, and I like it. I think it will be a lie to say page original creators is not fan of the specific involved topic. The page does have a Japanese equivalent, so I originally created partially motivated that it is good enough in Japanese, why not English? I think it is up to debate if notability should be considered just in terms of English community when published in English.

I try to avoid to vote, and this is not supposed to be a vote to begin with anyway according to Wikipedia own guidelines. I do know ahead the involved page is somewhat fringe to begin with at least in terms of English community, but I have seen even more fringe stuff surviving. For sure, I am make an appeal here for myself. I do want to hear what others say, please leave me a message in my personal page - that is what I really want to hear.

Scchan (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Commercial success has little influence on the notability of a subject. While a commercially success may indicate the potential for reliable third-party sources, it's not a very accurate indicator and more often doesn't mean anything.


 * Also, the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia does not give an "out" for this article. Each language Wikipedia sets it's own standards for inclusion. For the English Wikipedia, inclusion is based on receiving substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources along with a few other subject-area specific factors. For books, this includes winning a major literary award or making a significant contribution to a notable film or other art form.


 * Pointing to other articles isn't going to persuade anyone as to why this article should stay dispute of the inclusion guidelines. If we are going to ignore the guidelines, than we need to have a very good reason as to why this case is unique and should be made an exception.


 * User submitted reviews, such as those on Amazon, and blog reviews, unless they by an expert on the subject, are almost never considered reliable. Also, the language of the reviews is irrelevant. We have several articles on manga series that are well covered by in French or German sources and perfectly satisfy the inclusion guidelines. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Persuaded by Dream Focus comments. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete changed to Userfy on article creator. Fail inclusion guideline for books (WP:BK) with no prejudice for re-creation. This series is one out 42 serialized in Mag Garden's Comic Blade so the notability inheritance is fallacious. I dare you to name the 42 manga currently serialized in Comic Blade. Furthermore if we check Mag Garden webstore, series that received special treatment are Aria, Erementar Gelad, Tactics, Vassalords & Neko Ramen. Baggataway has yet to make it into that short list or even to make it into the Japanese weekly comics charts that speaks much of this series supposed "popularity". A not mentioned point is this series has yet to make into Western manga fandom with just 931 hits on Google for: Iroha Kohinata BaggataWay keys words search near all of them are blog, scanlation, download, read-only pages. Scanlation is stale at chapter 3. Side note, i found no licensor in French, German, Italian & Spanish. --KrebMarkt 08:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * update: Changed to userfy. After further reflexion, the good editing work should be salvaged but the chance to have it back to main space is slim, not a top dog in Japan, sport manga being a hard sell in North America. Salvation may come from anime adaptation and/or licensing in Europe probably France where sport manga do sell (Hajime no Ippo or Beach Stars) --KrebMarkt 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy until the article can be improved. Since I do not speak japanese, I request the OA provide translations of relevant citations. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up all the personal blog citations myself except the one associated with AkibaBlog - which it is a professional blog created by Akihabara insider. So I hope the article now meet guideline in authentic citations. I will try to work on more info before the deletion process move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scchan (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I gotta say, there's all sorts of little indications that this probably is notable by the demands of WP:BK, but so far the case isn't proven enough for me to say keep it. I haven't been able to find anything more with my poor linguistic skills. Since I fully believe that it eventually can be proven, userfy to the article creator's space to allow that editor more time to make the case. Deletion would be a waste of good work. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: Sorry for forgetting to sign again >< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scchan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (Original author): From I added more information to the page in question - focusing on more accountable info in notability (3rd party created professionally websites about the title), and detail of the manga in question. I will try to get a few more edits before the 7 day period. Please let me know; Sorry if I am unable to work on all the comments I have received. Thanks.
 * 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.