Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven's Prison


 * 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. Tone 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Heaven's Prison
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This manga series fails WP:BK and WP:N. An attempt by several editors to find reviews has came up with no results. (talkpage | wikiproject) Article was previously prodded, but the prod was disputed by the article's creator. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I went through google and google.jp with no sources to be found other than release info. There is a wikipedia Japan article about the series but as was pointed out to me is all plot and character info. As far as I can see no reliable third party sources exist as well, and there is one "official" site that looks more like an ad than an info page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (AT)


 * Delete No evidence of notability at all. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. As noted, several editors have done searches in multiple languages for possible RS, including where it is licensed, but none have been found. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found some notice of this in Spanish, which is some evidence of notability, but no reviews from sources that seem to be reliable. If anyone can identify some, in that or any other language, I'll change to keep, but until and unless, it's delete as failing WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As one who did a part of the evidences of notability search, i'm inclined to delete because even if it's licensed in Spain there is nothing reliable to chew to write an article with a perspective outside of the work. A work that just talk about itself is no good in the long run. I will change my vote if there are enough evidences found. --KrebMarkt 20:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You don't get published for five years in a major manga magazine without being notable. No sense having the same old common sense versus wikilawyering arguments again though.  Some believe you shouldn't think for yourself, that something isn't notable unless a magazine or newspaper says it is, and even go so far as to try to delete bestselling novels.  Everyone please state your honest opinions, and don't be discouraged from speaking your mind by others.   D r e a m Focus  03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Honest opinion, we can not write something accurate, neutral & balanced out of it. With just the work "talking" about itself in full navel gazing mode, something from and for fans. Can you say the otherwise with the old common sense? I don't care to be called evil as i did really spend more than 10 minutes looking for evidences of notability, doubtful that anyone did or will do as much for this article --KrebMarkt 06:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone call you evil? And AFD is not cleanup.  Does the subject deserve its own article?  Anything that needs to be improved in it, can be.  And you can find information about the long running series easily, and write an accurate article.   D r e a m Focus  13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked for references as well and could find no reliable references other than book release information (This includes sites in Japanese). If you can find reliable references then I will have a change in opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (AT)
 * If all that can be written about a manga is a plot summary with no sourced information about the manga's development, reception, or influence, then common sense will tell you that we can't write an encyclopedic article about. Redirect to the author, Hiroyuki Utatane. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can verify it by checking the official website of the magazine it is published in. And you don't have to list its development process, or how it influenced things.  Many articles of things don't have that.   D r e a m Focus  13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has to have one of those three things, or show the potential that one of these three things can be written from reliable third-party sources. Simply existing is not a legitimate reason to have an article. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to catalog everything that exists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does NOT Have to have those things. Many articles do not, nor do they need them to be in an encyclopedia.  And the Wikipedia does catalog everything that exists which is deemed notable by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment in the AFD.   D r e a m Focus  21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it does require one of those, as stated by WP:NOTPLOT, which is part of the WP:NOT policy. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that just says it should be more than just a plot, it doesn't mention anything else that should be there. A brief summary about what the series is, is all I see in the article.  It isn't a long page with nothing but a detail plot and nothing more.  Every single book and manga/comic article has at least a paragraph describing what it is.   D r e a m Focus  08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTPLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works." WP:NOT clearly states some of the things an article on fictional needs. Since we can't write anything more than a plot summary for this work and some basic publishing information, then we aren't able to treat the subject in the encyclopedic manner required by WP:NOT. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did anybody search by "天獄"? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No good findings within the first 10 googles search pages (100 results checked). You can take over me from here. --KrebMarkt 06:56, 15 September 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.