Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GirlFriends (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   no consensus - default to keep. There is no consensus to delete here, but there appears to be some dispute as to whether this is correctly titled (not referring to the mistake early on in the AfD, but in the merge/redirect discussion later on). This is an editorial matter, but should be confronted and resolved before this returns to AfD, if indeed it does. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GirlFriends (manga)

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

Unnotable 2 volume manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, no reviews, unlicensed. Doesn't even have an ANN entry. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. ~ Itzjustdrama C  ? 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What sensation of Déjà-vu, Girl Friends (manga) ja:GIRL FRIENDS 2-ongoing vols series by Milk MORINAGA. Won't feet BP:BK. No licensor in France, Germany, Italy & Spain that from the refused request archive. Yes, i forgot to check its existence with another spelling in WP, my bad. But the reason of the refusal and this Afd are the same regardless the article name and spelling so it's a ' Delete' .KrebMarkt 06:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Edit awaiting more from Quasirandom.
 * Actually, for extra fun, there is another manga series called Girl Friend by another author, which is also unnotable, but made source searching extra fun. :P -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That homonym series fares even better as it has ANN, was licensed in France with reviews Vol 1 Review Vol 2 Review Vol 3 Review Vol 4 Review Vol 1 & 2 Review Vol 4 short review Vol 1 short review (must scroll down). I didn't push that issue because it wasn't the object of the discussion but you gave me the opportunity and yes the homonym series pass WP:BK ;) KrebMarkt 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable then, as your links above. Dream Focus (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the entire message - those are links from a different series with a similar name. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 09:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure how many of those are RS, but yes, it seems Girl Friend has at least some notability where GirlFriends does not. I've added it to the requested article page :P -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are notable, so keep and create. Dream Focus (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've seen this series reviewed as a yuri series in a shoujo style (running in a seinen magazine no less) by Erica Friedman. I'm having trouble at the moment untangling the several other nearly identical titles, plus chance uses of the phrase. Will provide links when I find them. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's Erica Friedman's (who for the purposes of reviewing lesbian-themed manga is an expert in the field, and her reviews have been vetted as reliable for these purposes, even as self-published) reviews of volume 1 and volume 2. Also per her, the author was interviewed about the series on a web-radio show in Japan. In short, there is SOME significant coverage. Will keep looking, as I'm pretty sure I've seen other notice. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Job. Withholding vote for now. If it ends with keep i strongly suggest a renaming to be more in line with the Japanese WP article name. KrebMarkt 16:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll withhold my vote for now too. As per Kreb above. ~ Itzjustdrama C  ? 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that in addition to the very common title, searches for reviews are also hampered by the mangaka's penname being the same as a large Japanese dairy company. That said, I'm not finding anything else I can point to for sure as reliable. At this point, without finding more tangible results, I cannot support keeping this article. That said, in addition to hits above, there's this the ANN review of another volume by the author, so between all of those, I think we've confirmed her notability. At this point, I think the best option is to merge to Milk Morinaga. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The manga has only been reviewed by one person, and only then on her personal blog. Therefore the reviews by this person doesn't amount to significant coverage. I'm also skeptical of the claim that she is an expert in the field without some evidence that she has previously been published by reliable third-party publications on the subject of manga and particularly yuri manga. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That person is the main organizer of the Yuricon. We can at least admit that her opinion matter on yuri related manga & anime. --KrebMarkt 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idiot can start an anime con and be con chair. There are plenty of them over here that starts up cons all of the time. Some succeed, most fail. And Yuricon can be counted among the failed conventions. However, being a con chair doesn't make a person an expert. --Farix (Talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just a con chair, but also a small press publisher. In addition, she has published a few scholarly articles/read papers at scholarly conferences (her CV is on her site). I forget where, exactly, her expert status was vetted, though the process probably started on Talk:Yuri Talk:Yuri (genre). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Yuri (genre) proper inwiki. Her name appears from Archive 1 to current discussion. I reserve my opinion but to my mind whatever she is a RS should be discussed there as we need the opinion of the LGBT project members too. KrebMarkt 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion, it was never clearly established that she is either an expert or that her blog is a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 11 February 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.