Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little House with an Orange Roof


 * 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. Black Kite 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Little House with an Orange Roof

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Don't get me wrong; I love this series and read it maniacally every single time there's a new chapter out. But frankly, this page has been given enough chances to survive. A Google search of this in English leads to those oh-so-legendary illegal scanlation sites that should never be linked to. A search in Japanese on Google leads to a reference-less JA wiki page, the official publisher's official page, an apparent blogger review, and tons of retail sites. Neither WP:N nor WP:NB are met. The page itself has no lead and is made up of just a list of characters and their descriptions. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR talk //  contribs 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. Survived a PROD attempt. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. B.Rossow talk contr 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on a cursory review of the sources Nocturne brought forth and my own limited search, I agree that this does not meet GNG requirements. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:DONOTWANT Testmasterflex (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That really ought to be a blue link. NW ( Talk ) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BK and WP:N. Just not notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't been licensed, especially given its apparently addictive properties it inspires in fans such as the nominator. But then, I'm also surprised to learn it finished its run -- somehow I had the impression it was still being serialized -- but that's neither here nor there. I'm not finding anything to suggest it does in fact pass WP:BK, so delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't remind me of the addictive qualities of manga <_< ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol I don't even get the logic here. Why would someone nominate an article about a series they love for deletion instead of expanding it and stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs) 21:05, September 22, 2009
 * Let's pretend I absolutely love my best friend's band. He's in a no-name, unsigned, absolutely-in-no-way-notable band, and it has a Wikipedia page. Should I go spruce up the page with information I know but can't verify through references? I sure hope not. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This "band" is "signed" - its been published in Japan, ran 8 volumes. 76.99.63.186 (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, bad example then, since WP:BAND only requires it to be signed from some large-esque recording company. In the case of WP:NB, you need to have reviews or an anime adaption which is clearly not the case. The point remains that this article doesn't have notability in the context of its specific type (books, not bands). ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well man, you could've at least put in a little effort and improved the article a bit. You may not be able to cite some guy at IGN who said "this character looks cool", but you can pretty easily source all publication, story and character information. "Non-notablity" doesn't at all prevent the creation of a comprehensive, nicely sourced and well written article. And since the first thing most people check in regards to obscure subjects like this is Wikipedia, this is potentially harming the series' chances of gaining "notability" because you're actively barring people from getting interested, lessening the chances of a localized release. This whole line of thinking just sort of baffles me, because I thought people tended to want to see things they like succeed and become more popular. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia should not be a vessel by which stuff gains notability. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the actual scanlations will increase a series's popularity, and fyi, I am helping out. Furthermore, in terms of sourcing the publication, story and character information, do you seriously think it's pretty easy? If you've worked with Japanese sources, you'll know that they tend to delete old pages without archives. Furthermore, I don't read Japanese, so all my work is largely done through Google Translator, which has issues of its own. I made a few anime pages into featured content during my prime, but it is seriously difficult to source these series that haven't been licensed in the U.S. In any event, I really wish Japanese magazines published their reviews of mangas and animes online instead of keeping them in print form; think about how many more articles we could prove the notability of! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the sourcing being "pretty easy" I was referring to primary sourcing through the work itself since you don't really need a third party to note basic facts about story and characters. The difficulty in finding Japanese third party sources that almost assuredly exist is a very depressing matter though. Also, most unlicensed manga doesn't really get popular through the simple release of scanlations, they rely on places like forums and online encyclopedias to spread news of their existence and get people interested. I'm not saying WP should be bulletin board for advertising trivial subjects; things like long-running, published series of books are hardly trivial by real standards. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Lack enough evidence of notability. This series isn't licensed in France, Germany, Spain & Italy so evidence of notability won't come from that avenue. Suggest userfy if anyone is willing to have it in its user space checking for evidence of notability on a regular basis. --KrebMarkt 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also say userfy, but the series has ended. Unless it does get licensed or an anime (which given the author's track record is not impossible) such evidence is unlikely. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the one who brought that option, i guess i should assume consequence of it. Please instead of delete, userfy this article into my user space. I will check every 4 months for anime adaptation (WP:BK #3) and licensing in NA & Europe which would bring the needed RS coverage (WP:BK #1) --KrebMarkt 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Published in a magazine with a monthly circulation of Circulation 359,792, it having more potential readers than some bestselling novels. A notable magazine does not keep a manga series around for years, or bother publishing that many volumes collecting it all, if it isn't continuing to do well.   D r e a m Focus  01:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The magazine the manga was serialized in is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the manga's notability. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you link to BK just to be passive aggressive, or does it actually have relevance to what that guy said? Though I didn't look very hard, there appears to be nothing in that policy page about works serialized in such ways that manga are and it's probable that staying published in a major magazine like that for years, and even being published in one in the first place is no easy feat. It's not at all dissimilar to getting a television show on the air, and even the most stupidly minor, canceled-after-one-episode TV shows get articles without a problem here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response is confrontational in and of itself, fyi. Regardless, I have to admit that I feel that series that have been serialized in notable magazines do deserve articles, like the point you made about TV shows. However, consensus doesn't exist among WP:ANIME for this to be the case which is quite unfortunate. Perhaps a proposal should be attempted again? ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was ever really a proposal in the first place, and manga just kind of fell under the standards of novels and comics published in more standard ways. I'd support some sort of proposal to change this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally tried this a while back (like, four-ish months ago) and it got shot down so fast it wasn't even funny. It's redlinked so I could escape the ire of having failed so badly. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 21:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's a pity. I don't think it would hurt to try again though, maybe this time just bring it up as a proposal for change in BK or something instead of a whole new policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not invested enough in this whole keep/delete nonsense to go push proposals. I just follow whatever rules are laid out before me. I've got no interest in leading anything here. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me either. whooo apathy! - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, per consensus, it's not up to a WikiProject alone to decide the relevant inclusion guidelines are -- which means WP:MANGA can't decide on its own that the magazine a series is in is enough to pass WP:BK, but instead the larger community has agree. WP:MANGA itself has, repeatedly, agreed that WP:BK is the (as a minumum) appropriate guideline for manga, regardless of individual support for possible additional clauses ... none of which, however, has gotten any traction in the larger wikicommunity. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a pity. I'd love to see some discussions regarding this subject, if only to affirm my assumption of how they went. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussions are not archived, so Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) has them all. There are multiples. The main one dealing with manga would be the "Graphic novels" discussion. For the project side of the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 34 -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who decided this are a dozen or so people, who argue constantly until the other side gives up, and most people don't participate at all after seeing pages of discussion about something already there. There has never been any strawpolling, to see what the consensus of everyone else.  Just those who gather together at various projects, rush over at once and make changes, ganging up on anyone who is against them.  Wikipedia is not mindless rule following, people suppose to discuss things, and decide how things are best to be done, the guidelines nothing more than a suggestion, not actually policy.  That's why most bestselling novels are kept, even when not meeting the notability guidelines, despite some people's determination to delete them simply based on rules.  Here  is a fine example of that.  If you believe the article should be kept, don't hesitate to say so just because some are waving around a rule book they published themselves, without any input from any reasonable number of people.   D r e a m Focus  13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that that is always the only one you ever bring up like that and you continue arguing it was kept because of the sales numbers when it was not. Anyone reading that would also see that several "keep" sayers indicating it should be merged to a list of the novels of the series, and others actually showing the third-party coverage required, not just "oh, its a best seller so its notable". There are plenty of others that have closed as delete or merge that were also "best sellers", but of course they just were the result of the mythical cabal's you like to claim are responsible for all deletions and policies and guidelines. However, as you argue that for anything you disagree with (while anything you agree with magically has the "reasonable" number of participants), I'm sure you will not agree with that summary and will continue to just ignore all consensus because you don't agree with it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious irony and delusions aside, what exactly happened in that BK discussion? One second, Sandifer was citing logical arguments for some sort of change in manga standards based on the radically different ways they're published compared to Western comics(while Nohansen was going "lolwut" the whole time), but then all of a sudden it's decided that manga should stay under BK while comics and graphic novels go directly under N. This is illogical and the exact opposite of what should've happened based on the way that discussion was headed. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was basically decided to maintain the status quo - manga has always used WP:BK, so this was continued. Comics always has used WP:N only, so this was continued. Basically consensus was - no change needed and to eliminate the inappropriately created "6th" guideline added by the anime/manga project long ago (which, as an aside, would still not save this particular article). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are far better forums for this than this page. Yes, I realize I contributed to this, but no, this discussion should probably stop here and continue elsewhere. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 18:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy per User:KrebMarkt's request I cannot find sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:47, 28 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.