Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free! (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. L Faraone  07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Free! (manga)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This manga does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BK. Of the 4 sources currently used in the article, two are primary sources from the manga's publisher ( and ), one is a mention on a news website about the manga's serialization start, and the last one is being used to support a claim not present in the source, not to mention that said source does not even mention Free!. A Google search turned up another news mention of the serialization, but mostly the search contained blogs and retail websites selling the manga, or websites connected back to the publisher. I contend that this coverage does not satisfy the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as stipulated at WP:GNG, nor do I find evidence of it satisfying the criteria at WP:BK, so I believe it should be deleted.  十  八  09:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--  十  八  09:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--  十  八  09:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  Procedural Oppose (change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article) - this unnotified AfD, following an unnotified prod is related to Talk:Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club where a move proposal has been submitted to make the TV anime WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Free!. The problem is that on the Japanese wikipedia the situation is reversed, the schoolgirl comic book is WP:PRIMARY japanese TOPIC ja:Free! while the TV anime series about the swim club is disambiguated as ja:Free! (アニメ) i.e. the ja.wp disambiguator (アニメ) is (anime). I suggest that this isn't the best use of AfD for an AfD to be issued simply because a competing article wants "primary" topic status. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "primary topic". This manga is a non-notable topic, as I have evidenced above, and does not deserve an article on the English Wikipedia. I honestly am not too interested where Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club ends up, as I have yet to actually vote in the move debate, but when it comes to creating articles on non-notable topics, I'll move for deletion. And it was hardly "unnotified". I mentioned it at Talk:Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club, a debate you are a member of, and I also listed it at the two deletion sorting pages linked above.--  十  八  10:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the guidelines on notification for both speedy Prod and AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. WP:AFD: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Yes, I may have overlooked notifications for the prod, but I did what was required for the AFD, not to mention that specifically notifying the article's creator via their talk page is not required.--  十  八  11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ...and also oppose on merit (change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article) - the procedural issue aside, in terms of the content of these Manga Time Kirara Max magazine 4-panel comic strips this one doesn't seem notably thinner in the ja.wp article than Gochūmon wa Usagi Desu ka?, Kanamemo, Kiniro Mosaic, Rakka Ryūsui, The Last Uniform and Welcome to Wakaba-Soh. If it really fails notability in Japanese sources then Gochūmon wa Usagi Desu ka?, Kanamemo, Kiniro Mosaic, Rakka Ryūsui, The Last Uniform and Welcome to Wakaba-Soh probably would also fail notability in Japanese sources and a bulk AfD for all 7 comic strips should be issued on ja.wp as well as here. Why is this 1 not notable and the other 6 are? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, please do not try to make this discussion about other articles. This discussion should be about if Free! satisfies notability guidelines, not whether other similar articles already exist.--  十  八  10:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." - it also happens to be an essay some editors including myself consider extremely silly. The reality is that per actual guidelines, not essays, we do strive for consistency. If this article is deleted then at least 3 of the other 6 might also be. And yet several of them have already survived AfDs. So this is an issue of precedent. Articles for deletion/Falling of Blossoms Keep and Articles for deletion/Kiniro Mosaic Keep, so rather than citing an essay, please demonstrate that sources you would expect to find for anime are missing for this 1 and only this 1 relative to previous AfD discussions of related articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ONLYESSAY. I did not suggest that otherstuff was a policy, just that it was an argument that holds little merit in deletion discussions. The reason otherstuff exists is because it is a poor argument in a deletion discussion, and attempts to sway the discussion away from the article being discussed. Whether you find it silly or not, it's still a poor argument. And I have already demonstrated that this article is lacking the necessary sources to establish notability. A couple of primary sources from the publisher and a source from ANN that does not even mention Free! do not establish notability. One small news mention about the manga's serialization starting in the magazine does not establish notability.--  十  八  10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no point me restating my view of that essay. The previous Keep AfDs are relevant to the magazine. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, so despite there being other series from that magazine that may have demonstrated notability on their own, that has no bearing on the notability of this article.--  十  八  07:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As Juhachi stated, notability is not inherited from one topic to another. Manga A and Manga B runs in the same magazine. Manga B is notable because it has received a great deal of coverage by reliable sources or won awards, however this has not relationship to Manag A. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:NOTE). There is also no evidence that the subject passes any of the other criteria for notability in WP:BK. Citing other articles does not give a free pass for this subject nor does a discussion on another article's talkpage have any relationship on the notability of this article. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK. This manga would have a better chance if it were released outside of Japan but seeing that it is only in Japan at the moment with sources scarce I would have to say that this one is not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have tried to clean up the article, especially the sources. The Comic Natali piece is an independent RS, and I have found an article on Pia on the controversy over the hiatus that is an unquestionable RS (PIA is a major entertainment news source). I also found one English article on the controversy, though others would have to judge whether that is an RS. Otherwise, I have not found much. It also seems that the e-mail distribution is over, so it is unclear whether this manga will ever return. At this point, there are two good independent RS (maybe 3?), but on a manga that is currently not in publication and only produced one tankobon. I am leaning towards userfying until it can be determined that the manga has resumed publication. Michitaro (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As above change to merge to Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article - User:Michitaro thank you for finding more RS. As to Keep or userfy there's no need to userfy,... rather than userfy, merge. I created this to fill a hole after noting it was primary topic for the title in ja.wp. If it fails notability it can be merged to a short paragraph at the bottom of the Manga Time Kirara Max magazine article under the Manga Time Kirara Max manga that do have standalone articles and have already survived AfDs. And maybe some of the others should be merged to paragraphs too? However I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the cover jpg would need to be deleted as no longer a main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck out this !vote because as you have already have another above. You may add additional comments, but you only get one !vote. Also, a merge would be inappropriate as the article on the magazine should be about the magazine itself. However, even the article on the magazine doesn't establish notability and is a candidate for AfD. Just because a few series in the magazine have received significant coverage or have had anime adaptations that received significant coverage, that isn't inherited by the magazine. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, bold and strike fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seventhstyle's statues as a reliable source is very questionable. It appears to be nothing more than a fanblog based on their about page. It also accept articles from outside contributes which indicate they lack any editorial oversight to vet the accuracy of their contents. PIA's article have very brief coverage and doesn't meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG which addresses the topic directly and in detail and is more of a minor news story. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment on the Seventhstyle piece. However, you are incorrect about the PIA article. I have participated in well over one hundred AfDs and articles of that length have been considered sufficient. More crucial is whether two RS are sufficient to establish notability. Again, I have my doubts, so I lean towards userfying. Michitaro (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A reliable source perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor makes me question said reliable source, but that's for another debate. If all that makes this series notable is that it might have been cancelled due to industry pressure, which cannot even be independently verified, I don't feel that would be enough to justify its own article. Not to mention that the Natalie piece merely on the manga's start would not satisfy "significant coverage" in my view.--  十  八  01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not convinced that any of the sources currently cited actually constitute the level of in-depth or reliable coverage required to satisfy the basic notability guidelines at WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, despite a deep search for other reliable sources, I was unable to find much that suggest notability (and my search was in Japanese, but all I was able to find were sites selling the manga). The sources given above, while normally reliable, only appear to be reporting on rumors, and while the standard for notability on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, in this case, the coverage from those sources are unsubstantiated. Because I can find almost no coverage for this manga outside of those rumors, even in its native Japanese, it pains me to !vote weak delete (weak because, as it was still covered in a reliable source, and I am not discounting the possibility that there could be coverage out there that I may have missed). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:04, 14 December 2013 (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.