Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa


 * 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   merge to Toshiki Yui. Shi meru  00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A search for reliable third-party sources comes up only with illegal scanlation websites and the occasional forum post. Fails both the WP:NOTE and WP:BK inclusion guidelines. Prod disputed on the bases that another WikiProject had to agree to the proposed deletion of the article and that I was somehow showing WP:OWNership for originally prodding the article for deletion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I never said you thought you own this article. Instead, I suggested that as long as another WikiProject tagged this article as being "of interest" to them, we need consensus from a number of people to delete the article. There is presently one reference in the article, to Anime News Network, which is neither an illegal scanlation site nor a forum posting. Maybe someone can find more. But we don't have any consensus -- and it's necessary. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should read about the WP:PROD procedures. Also, I don't need the consent or input of another WikiProject in order to propose an article for deletion nor is it a good reason to remove a prod tag. And finally, the ANN Encyclopedia is user-edited and is not a reliable source. Last time you were told this by different editors, you blew up and threw a temper-tantrum. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're losing your temper, Farix. Anyone can suggest anything for deletion and anyone can agree or object. We all know that. You and I differ about the reliability of ANN, but that makes no difference. Deleting the article needs consensus, not action by one person, you or me. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just did a Google search for this manga using its Japanese title ""ボクのふたつの翼" and got about 2000 hits. I'm not going through them to find which might be reliable or not. Now, this, it seems to me, is a question of whether or not the English Wikipedia can ignore material in languages other than English when we try to assess what is and is not "notable." But if these sources count -- personally, I think they should -- then this manga is clearly notable. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a case of the English Wikipedia ignoring material in languages other than English; there are no Japanese-language sources in evidence at all, just blogs and booksellers: . The jawiki article is similarly unsourced. cab (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection to a minimal merge of the verifiable and relevant content either (e.g. the list of ISBNs of editions in which it was published). cab (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep  It's an interesting article and no worse than a great deal of other stuff on Wikipedia. It needs work -- it's a stub. I say give it a chance.  User cab said the Japanese search gave "just blogs and booksellers." I admit I wonder about that; I put my comment up about my search at 00:15, 6 July, and he replied at 00:26, July 6 -- giving 11 minutes to examine some 2000 websites. But, OK, I'll accept it -- it's mostly blogs and booksellers. Which, it seems to me, goes a long way to demonstrating notability of this manga in Japan even if we can't use the blogs as reliable sources. Likewise, even if we can't cite the Japanese Wikipedia, that article too indicates that the manga is notable. So let it stay. It's harmless. Timothy Perper (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I got 441 non-duplicate Google hits. That's 9 pages. Scanning that in 10 minutes is hardly a suspicious accomplishment, especially when most of it is such obvious junk. cab (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Toshiki Yui as the author is a notable mangaka. --Malkinann (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. I did a great deal of cleanup of my CSE hits, and even then, it's junk. Whatever sources of notability there may be for this series, looks to me like they're not available from the anglophone Internet. --Gwern (contribs) 07:18 6 July 2010 (GMT)
 * Here's a review. It's in English. http://www.fightbait.com/boku-futatsu-tsubasa-wings-2/ I found it in the list you generated. The reviewer thought the manga was sort of silly, but doesn't doubt the interest of the futanari. Yes, you're right -- I didn't search the Anglophone internet, but used the Japanese title ボクのふたつの翼 and got some 2080 hits, about 1800 of them in Japanese, many for booksellers and blogs. I didn't examine them for reviews. I also got some 264 hits in English (I just repeated the search about five minutes ago with the same results), most them booksellers, blogs, and scanlators.
 * I now think that merging is the best solution. Here's why I changed my mind. The article contains a longish description of the plot and characters, but there is no official English translation of the manga. So I suspect that the description given in the article is based on a scanlated version, and I don't think we should use it. But the basic description of what the manga is about is all over the web, including the review above. So merge what's left with the Toshiki Yui page.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we never use fightbait.com, and offhand, doesn't look like it would pass our more stringent editors' RS standards. --Gwern (contribs) 04:19 8 July 2010 (GMT)


 * I think you're misunderstanding me, in good faith, but still misunderstanding what I'm saying. Doesn't matter what "we use" or not -- I'm not talking about what to put into the article. I'm talking about deleting or keeping the article, not rewriting it. So it's a matter of whether or not there's evidence on the web for the popularity or for fan-interest in "My Two Wings." That is a matter of notability and not of reliability. Whether "we" like it or not, there's a lot of evidence for notability of Yui's manga. It is NOT a high school kid's cartoon drawn in the high school newspaper -- which he thinks makes him "notable" and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. "My Two Wings" has some 2000 hits in Japanese web sources; a number of sources in English-language websites; a complete scanlation; and (up to now, at least) even a Wiki article, this one, which was put up in good faith three years ago. Whether we like it or not, "My Two Wings" is notable.
 * The question is "now what"? I don't like the fightbait review any more than you do, and I have serious reservations about scanlations. But, nonetheless, scanlations have become one of the most popular sources for manga in the non-Japanese speaking world (references some other time). So what do we do about it? One answer is "nothing" -- ignore it because it fails various wiki-tests. But that puts us increasingly behind the curve in how manga and anime are both moving in the world -- scanlations and fansubs may be legally dubious, but they're extremely popular. We can ignore them, taking the high moral ground and feeling pleased with ourselves, but the world of fan enthusiasms is not on the same moral wavelength. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. So the question is what do scanlations and blogs and all the other "unreliable" sources mean, all issues of morality and legality aside.
 * Maybe that's clearer? Timothy Perper (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Added later. I believe that Wikipedia exists to put up articles of interest to readers. It doesn't exist to make editors' egos feel good. It's a service to people "out there." To me, "notable" means "notable to our readers," not "notable to us personally." No one -- least of all me! -- is saying we should start citing scanlation sites! But their existence proves that readers are interested in certain titles, and we have to take that fact into consideration when we write, edit, or keep/merge/delete articles. I just googled "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" and got 170,000 hits. That's a lot of interest. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still later: guess what the top item is on the list of 170,000 hits? It's this Wiki article. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The very first thing I did when setting up my CSE was throw in a ton of blacklists to get rid of mirrors and mechanical variations on Wikipedia. It is of course possible that Wikipedia could get used for PR and the consequences of the PR subsequently make something notable, but that is rarely the case and we should stick to sources which are independent of Wikipedia... --Gwern (contribs) 05:28 9 July 2010 (GMT)

I agree in part -- but I don't see that Wikipedia itself can "make" something notable. In fact, my impression is that fans ignore Wikipedia, not that that flatters us, but I don't read fans talking about "Wiki says this" or "Wiki says that" when I read fan-written material. I sincerely doubt that the majority of those 170,000 hits are Wiki mirror sites, but I'll go test that next and let you know what happens. So we're still stuck with a lot of fan interest in "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." I'll be back in a bit. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I just googled a few pages using "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" with various other terms. This time I got 154,000 hits for "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." I went through the first few pages and then sampled; I found lots and lots of download sites (this manga really is popular) but no Wiki mirror sites. When I searched for various combinations of the title plus "wiki" or "wikipedia" I got far fewer -- "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" +wiki = 1490 sites (= 1490/154000 < 1%); "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" +wikipedia = 1100 sites (= 1100/154000 < 1%). So it doesn't look like many of those 154,000 sites are Wikipedia mirror sites. I also found a few Spanish-language download sites (which I won't give the URLs for!) so there is at least some interest in "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" among fans who read Spanish. This manga seems to be quite popular. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. I forgot to mention. I also searched Google using the language option, asking for results in French only and in German only for "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa". I wanted to see if there are scanlations in languages other than English, and the answer is Yes. Once again, I will NOT provide the URLs.


 * And maybe it'd be wise to say this again. I am not saying that we need to cite any of these scanlations; in fact, I oppose doing that. But we also need to understand that scanlations are a measure of popularity, illegal as it might be, among fans. The existence of a French-language version of "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" indicates that at least some Francophone manga fans are willing to break the law to obtain copies of this manga. The same is true for US fans. My point is once again that these facts indicate that "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa" is in fact quite popular, and therefore de facto "notable." Timothy Perper (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Not enough evidence of notability found. No licensor in English, French, German, Spanish & Italian found. Found licensor in Taiwan. Scanlation is complete. No reserve for recreation of the article in the future if the series get licensed in NA or Europe. --KrebMarkt 20:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per objections of Timothy Perper--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Malkinann's reasons. Etrigan (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Toshiki Yui. Edward321 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Toshiki Yui. It's a popular manga for a reason, but as far as I can tell it has escaped critical notice (darn it).That it hasn't yet been licensed in Europe doesn't help that situation. If, one day, someone can demonstrate it passes WP:BK, then we can revisit. Because of that popularity, we definitely need to keep a redirect as a probable search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge Not sure I know how to change my vote, but that's the idea. Quasirandom is absolutely right. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge the article lead only to Toshiki Yui. What is there to merge anyways? A redirect would be just as helpful but for plot sake I say merge the lead as it least talks about what this manga ia about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 12 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.