Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciguatera (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ciguatera (manga)

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

Non-notable manga. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ciguatera (manga). 6 Vol series by Minoru Furuya. ANN. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. I'm holding my vote as this article was created less than 24 hours ago by a new user and already in Afd. This user at first passed by the anime/manga requested article department then opted to create the article himself/herself. This article already withstanded a speedy delation A1. I knew that Wikipedia like to warmly welcome new user but that one is a hellish fire welcome. --KrebMarkt 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. You shouldn't try to delete something its first day out.  People are working on it now, so just leave it be.   D r e a m Focus  13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely fails WP:BK. Unnotable manga series with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Whether its an editors first article is completely irrelevant and a red-herring to the argument, particularly when this request WAS already rejected. They also noted on the talk page "I just made this page to at least get some other input on this manga." -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't rejected just that this contributor didn't wait for our assessment and yes it would have failed in my assessment --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep manga from notable artist (Minoru Furuya, creator of Ping-Pong Club), published by Japan's biggest publisher (Kodansha), and long enough to be collected in 3 books. I'm not really seeing what the problem here is. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not meet WP:BK. Notability of the author is certainly not so significant that all their works are instantly notable, and who publishes it is completely irrelevant in this case. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Manga can't inherit the notabity of its author nor the notability of another manga of that same author. This won't help to write verifiable article content wise. Better use that prize as argument of notability for the author article or for Ping-Pong Club. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep According to ANN (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-12-22/9th-japanese-media-arts-festival-winners) this manga was an "official recommendation" at the 9th Japanese Media Arts Festival (see also ). Okay, it didn't WIN that year, but its a pretty official mention. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it didn't win anything, and one minor mention does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the weakest archievement of that festival, see Japan Media Arts Festival. Only the Grand, Excellence and Encouragement prizes are worth mention. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who came up with that standard? _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Which part of WP:BK does this pass? I think I may be missing something with so many keep voters. Can someone clarify please? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given enough time for people to inform me of how this passes WP:BK. After researching, looking for both English and Japanese sources, I was unable to find any and will therefore vote delete. However, I wish to warn the nominator of this AfD against nominating articles this quickly. I suggest waiting at least a week before using AfD or PROD templates. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The jury recommendation is the only thing I'm finding in English for this series, aside from scanlations -- hardly even any forum buzz. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE Non-notable and stupid does not belong in an encyclopedia. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Please try to use arguments other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT] please. FingersOn  Roids♫  00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BK. Eusebeus (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BK. Hasn't yet made an impact in the world of books (and in the world itself).  Them From  Space  18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi all I'm the one who created the article. I read the rules for posting a new article and I thought I had followed them, but I guess I had overlooked some stuff such as the notability of the content.The reason I decided to create the article is really simple: When I was once searching for information on this title years ago, all I ever found was an article on fish poison. I had no clue as to what this manga was about but was curious about what it was all about. I had no other way of knowing what it was about other than reading the manga for myself and I thought I would share this information so that if anyone else were to try looking for Ciguatera on wikipedia then they would not just be lead to an article on fish poisoning, they would at least know that it was a manga and who it was created by. I know that my attemps at a summary will win no awards, and I didn't expect them to, I just wanted other interested readers to have an idea as to what the book is about.


 * Also I've had this account for a few years, but never bothered logging into it, rather I would just edit it as a guest. I've been adding small edits to wikipedia for a while now (Like small updates and obvious grammatical/factual errors or expanding on under developed points. Since I started school though the college IP has been blocked from making edits so I was forced to login. So yes it was my first major article written, but not my first time editing.


 * Also I just read over the notability and it says clearly on point 5 that: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable."


 * The author Minoru Furuya Did indeed win an award in 1996. I do believe that that counts as historically significant?


 * --BOMEz (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that does not count as being historically significant. Historical significant is significance in history (like Shakespeare) and/or it seen as a pioneer, notable among peers, etc. Not a minor contemporary author who won a one time award.--  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

''From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of books upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature.''
 * WP:BK says for Non-contemporary books
 * So, ignore all the points it doesn't make, and focus on a more common sense approach. Focus on the fame its had, thus, its sales figures(enough to publish 6 volumes someone said), and being featured in a massively popular and influential manga magazine.  I'd say this article is a definite keeper.   D r e a m Focus  21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very clearly not for this book, it specifically speaks to older works which this is not. Again, no valid reason to ignore the normal WP:BK criteria that all other manga can easily meet, nor does "non-contemporary" allow for any such criteria as you slated, which are specifically not allowed by consensus at WP:BK. Sales figures irrelevant, regardless of age, nor can you claim to "focus on the fame it once had" when it IS a contemporary book and still on-going. Obviously falls within the standard WP:BK criteria. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked up what the word contemporary meant. Nevermind.  Thought it meant something else.  I still say keep, do the rules of common sense, it seldom manga gets mentioned in the reviews, so the notability guidelines are unfairly bias against them.   D r e a m Focus  21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The manga is licensed in Taiwan and Hong Kong under two separate publishers. _dk (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I recall this getting quite a bit of buzz at the time. Might be worth scouring Japanese sites and trying to find a source or two. If only Japanese newspapers kept archives online...borderline books like this would actually have a shot. Doceirias (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Searches for the manga's title and author's name in both English and Kanji/Kana are not coming up with any useful hits to indicate coverage by reliable sources. It may be a potential redirect to the author's article, but there is nothing here to merge as the article is entirely a plot summary. --Farix (Talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The searches didn't even come up with the Japanese Media Arts Festival jury recommendation? I agree that it isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own, but it is coverage, and if it didn't show up that makes your searches seem not entirely reliable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 20 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.