Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider SD


 * 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   redirect to Kamen Rider Series. Can always be reinstated if suitable sourcing is found. Black Kite (t)  00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamen Rider SD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only source currently cited on this article is the Anime News Network, which is a website that contains user-submitted content and is consequently, like the Internet Movie Database, not a citable source. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for manga. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: OP is a little imprecise; ANN's encyclopedia is user-generated and that is what is linked. CSE hits for 'Kamen Rider SD'. --Gwern (contribs) 17:44 9 November 2011 (GMT)
 * Keep: There is an extensive page at the Japanese Wikipedia on the subject, and the Japanese title gets more coverage. These 4 different manga, 3 different video games, and 1 direct to video movie are most definitely notable. Due to the age of the subject matter and the source language, however, it is difficult to find reliable sources for it. The fact that it is a subset of a notable and popular media franchise, this particular instance should be as notable as its parent topic.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited. As Wikipedia's notability guidelines state, "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Other language Wikipedias are not valid sources and it appears that the Japanese Wikipedia's article on this subject is entirely unsourced. I also fail to see any reliable, secondary sources among those that appear in the Google search link provided by Ryulong above. Neelix (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some sort of leeway when a subject is 20 years old and there are no digital records regarding the notability? Surely, something that includes eight different pieces of media and being created/inspired by a Guinness World Record-holding author implies some notability.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kamen Rider Series. Jtrainor (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is one of these cases in which we must consider, as said in the guideline, "not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article", because "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation". Here, notability (and existence of reliable sources) could be easily presumed, considering its direct membership in an hightly notable franchise, an eight-year-long saga that has generated four different manga, published by notable/well-known editors and notable/well-known magazines, 14 books, 3 different video games for three different well-known video game consoles, one OAV (that passes WP:FILM for itself) animated by Toei and with music production provided by Columbia Music Entertainment, action figures, board games, trading cards and more merchandise. As said by Ryulong, due to the age of the subject matter and (mostly) the source language, it is obviously difficult to find sources for it.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The quotation cited by Cavarrone above is taken out of context. The relevant guideline goes on to say "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The name of this section of the notability guidelines itself is called "Notability requires verifiable evidence". It is true, as Cavarrone states above, that notability does not require sources currently named in the article, but it does require verifiable evidence, ie. specified sources whether they are currently cited in the article or not. No one has managed to produce any such sources in this article's more-than-five-year edit history, and considering that no one is managing to produce any even when pressed to do so in this AfD, it appears highly unlikely that any such sources will ever be produced for this article. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neelix. The subject is going to be 20 years old. I know it's rare, but nothing within the past 5 years of the proliferation of the Internet has produced anything we can find to support the fact that this is notable. I didn't bother with the Kamen Rider Black manga or the Kamen Rider Eve/Masked Rider Gaia manga. However, this has eight different media forms, one of which was a notable film. This will not be deleted.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep a stub article on Wikipedia that has no possibility of expansion and for which no reliable, secondary sources can be found is to go directly against Wikipedia's guidelines. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only a stub because I removed excessive plot detail regarding the OVA. It could very well expand, to include chapter titles of the various manga, more indepth information about the various video games, and perhaps some more information about the OVA. I am still trying to figure out why you have been systematically hitting various Kamen Rider pages. While they may have not all been the best pages, you have been hitting pages that are difficult to find sources for, and should very well be determined notable by being various official offshoots of the main notable franchise.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the information that you are suggesting that could expand this article is sourced in reliable, secondary sources. The Kamen Rider Series is a notable franchise, and many of the subtopics of this franchise are also notable. The notability of the franchise as a whole does not justify the creation of individual articles on the minute details of the franchise that have not garnered coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As I have stated previously, notability is not inherited. The guidelines are quite clear. Neelix (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that this page (now) covers 4 different comic book series, 3 unrelated video games, and one short film mean nothing then? This is not a minute detail. It is an aspect that cannot be adequately incorporated into any of the parent articles. And sources do indeed exist. They are just impossible to come by because it has been 20 years since the subject first came out. It is very likely that in the ancient copies of Televi-Kun, Televi Magazine, Hyper Hobby, Newtype, etc., there are articles on the SD Kamen Riders. However, it is not possible to recover these.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a repeated comment, just because it lacks them now does not mean it completely lacks sources. They exist. They are just impossible to come by because:
 * The subject is 20 years old, and
 * The subject is Japanese
 * It needs work. It does not need to be eliminated entirely.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that such sources exist. Simply stating that they exist does not demonstrate that they do. Sources that are impossible to come by, as you have stated these to be, are not sources at all, because they cannot be used as such. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable. It is a notable offshoot of a notable franchise. The age of the subject makes it nigh impossible to find sources online. There are most definitely books and magazines that came out throughout the 90s that feature this, but they cannot be found easily. Why is that an issue?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue if they can be found, but no one has been able to do so in the five years that this article has existed, which leads me to believe that they don't exist. My personal search has turned up nothing. Neelix (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well neither of us exactly has access to 20 year old Japanese newspapers or children's magazines, now do we?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (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.