Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer


 * 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. After examining all comments and arguments, I've found there to be a clear consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

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

Fails WP:BK. No references, redlink author, and a search for reviews or the like turned up nothing. Information is certainly verifiable, but not notable. PROD removed with a WP:GHITS reference, which is not a valid anti-deletion argument. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR (t &bull; c) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in the interests of full disclosure, I have read parts of this manga (mainly the first few chapters). ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no extensive reviews. Licensed in China, but no Chinese reviews found either. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A rather large number of people are reading the English fansubs of it, making it notable. You don't get mentioned on over 30 thousand sites without being notable.  I am wondering about the Japanese name for it, since Googling that gets no results in quotes.  Can someone who reads Japanese please correct that?  Which magazine was it featured in, there two with similar names, various sources pointing at each of them, and how many subscribers do those magazines have?  The overwhelming majority of manga does not get any mention in third party major news articles, so you can't use that standard for notability.   D r e a m Focus  18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can give you the links and you should have fun with translation tools ja:惑星のさみだれ | ja:ノート:惑星のさみだれ | Young King Comics --KrebMarkt 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kanji is correct per the magazine it is serialized in. Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer, however, appears to be a fan translation. And yes, we do use the existence of real, reliable, third-party references for manga same as all other areas. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, history has shown that isn't always the case. Since there is no possible way to meet that requirement for most articles.  Even many confirmed bestselling novels do not get any reviews in major newspapers or other notable third party sources.  It is up to those in the discussion to decide if the rules of common sense and ignore_all_rules are more important than wikilawyering.   D r e a m Focus  00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of things. First, IAR is only to be thrown around when it improves the Encyclopedia. This article isn't Encyclopedic: there are no sources, the book isn't notable, etc. Second, don't accuse someone of Wikilawyering when you are doing so yourself. Finally, my own common sense tells me that this should be deleted. I don't see any sources whatsoever. IAR should only be applied in edge cases; not in every single deletion argument you get into. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been around for years, first in a major magazine publication, and then published on its own. It has a very large number of people reading it online(illegally in English).  It has been translated and released in another country(Taiwan).  That makes it as notable as any manga out there.   D r e a m Focus  00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your position basically boils down to, "It exists, therefore it should have an article." You clearly do not have an understanding of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, and it is clear that you are not interested in understanding them either. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. My position is, it clearly exists, and is read by significant number of people, and therefor is notable.   D r e a m Focus  00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which has zero basis on our policy and guidelines and is therefore toothless. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Dream Focus You can't write an informative and veriable article without any RS Third party coverage. --KrebMarkt 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I seconded the prod. The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer (Hoshi no Samidare/惑星のさみだれ) 6-ongoing series by Satoshi Mizukami. As Collectonian wrote it is licensed in Taiwan but not in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Unwinding Google hits for "Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer" -wikipedia keys words drop to 99 pertinents hits most of them are blogs, forums, scanlation websites and the likes. My conclusion is to delete as not notable enough and very awkward verifiability of the current content. However i will defer to anyone able to provide RS Third party coverage of this manga. --KrebMarkt 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The number of GHits is irrelevent. The number of people who may have read it is irrelevant. The fact that scanlations exists is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason why anime and manga should be exempt from the notability guidelines. Anyone who repeatedly makes such foolish arguments time and time again at AFD shouldn't be commenting in the AFDs. If you are not willing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you shouldn't be here. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much per nom. This book is verifiable and has a lot of Ghits, but nothing can be found about it to show why it meets WP:N, which calls for multiple independant third-party sources discussing the book in detail.  Them  From  Space  20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per everyone else but Dreamfocus. You'd think they'd learn by now that google hits are meaningless for establishing notability. Scanlations certainly are meaningless, pretty much everything is scanlated these days, notable or not. Not convinced over the article title either, since when were articles listed by their subtitle? Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is apparently a series that started recently and is ongoing. Don't you think we should give it some time? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It started in 2005...four years ago. That isn't recent, even if it is on-going. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That series started on June 2006 with 6 volumes released and still ongoing serialization so that is not a recent series. However i do acknowledge that its article on Wikipedia is fairly recent. Giving time to someone who created article because he/she read its scanlation is rather meeuhhh IMO... --KrebMarkt 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? if it has not had time to gain notability then it is too early for it to have a Wikipedia article. You are making an argument for delete even though you !voted keep.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, nevermind then I guess. The link I looked at said something about it starting in mid-late 2008. Though if it's like four yars old and ongoing there should be something worth looking up. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Note - the summary and character list have been removed as they were copied from scanslation sites. While they may be illegal sites, WP:COPYVIO of their summaries does still apply (irony noted). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BK; GHITS don't quality. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and add the Japanese sources I cannot find. I hate this stuff, but was able to find and add some English sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you did not find reliable sources. Instead, you linked to fansub sites which, of course, violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Please be aware that almost everyone who has said delete above are members of the anime/manga project so we saw all of those sites and knew they were not appropriate, hence their not being mentioned. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll revert the entire thing. Thanks for cluing me in, as nothing on those sites alluded to their being translations, illegal or otherwise. Kind of why I asked for input from Japanese editors... as I do not read Japanese. I had to go with what I had.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you did it yourself.... and accused my good faith providing of sources as if I was intentionally trying to sneak something in under the radar. PLEASE NOTE ALL, I added no material to the article, and simply did what I could with English Google to find sources. And I suppose I can now safely assume that Collectonion, being able to read and write Japanese, will now herself provide properly translated sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Struck my comments and offer apologies to Collectonion. My thought here, is that if this tripe is as popular for as many years in Japan as it seems to have been, someone over there has surely written about it... but I do not read Japanese. I invite any other editor who does not, might also themselves recuse themselves from commenting... but that's up to them. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey hey, there aren't any sources to provide. I've looked. Why does everybody always look down on the nominator these days? I didn't just AfD this randomly, to see if sources would come up... I've actually spent time looking for sources, and no reliable sources that help this pass the notability guideline exist! ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I said the sources you added violated copyright, not coyvio, and was trying to say I'm sure you just didn't realize it but the rest got cut off. All four very clearly note that they distribute fansubs and scanslations. Everyone one I just looked at either had "fansub" or similar right there in the main menus or on the very pages linked. Such sites are illegal and should never be linked to per Wikipedia's copyright policies. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can add reliable sources that allow the page to pass WP:V. That isn't in question here. My main issue with this article is that it, in no way, passes WP:N, namely WP:BK. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete edit warring magnet; waste of time fancruft; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATA.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ATA with thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone added a review by Mainichi Shinbun into the article. (Despite what someone said in an edit summary, the piece is not just a summary.) I should add that just because a person looked on the internet and didn't manage to find any sources does not mean that there are no sources or that "this article is hopeless". _dk (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. That is a summary. Have you translated it at all? It doesn't give a review of the series anyway; it merely restates what the manga's storyline is. Furthermore, I can clearly point out that there are sources. Again, this easily passes WP:V. I've read the manga. I know it exists. But the sources required for it to pass WP:BK don't exist, just like I said in the nomination statement and in other locations. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two paragraphs contain the thoughts of the writer, so along with the summary, that counts as a review to me. _dk (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, that may be an issue with my Japanese understanding. Even if this is a review, this article still doesn't pass WP:BK. Specifically, point 1: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that this article can be kept if more sources can be found other than just one. I can agree with that. _dk (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, with more SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Proof that the series exists does not mean it is notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, keep repeating that and Mainichi Shinbun will become insignificant, unreliable, and non-existant. A review dedicated to the subject is insignificant, wow. The stuff people pull off to make their point.... _dk (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, read the actual notability guideline. One review is not enough to show notability. One review is not significant coverage. Nor did anyone say that the review was unreliable nor non-existant. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I said before you said no and acted like I don't read policy. Funny how we can be in agreement and yet still argue. It is hard to communicate on the internet after all. _dk (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — fails WP:N & WP:BK. Jack Merridew 11:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Yahoo Japanese dictionary, 批評 is "(a) criticism，a review ((of))" Dekkappai (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've got no interest in working on it, and there'd be no point in it anyway, as I've seen how these things increasingly work: A group of self-appointed "guardians of morality notability" decide what we can and cannot read and write about and refuse to consider the other side. Working on the article will result in immediate content blanking reports filed at editor comment boards, etc... Anyway, in spite of the lengthy discussion above, the simplest of Google News searches pulled up a review in a major Japanese paper. This shows 1) there is bound to be coverage elsewhere and, 2) no one here is interested in really working on the article, only in deleting it. Dekkappai (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If there is bound to be coverage, why have around 20 people been completely unable to find it? While I personally feel that anime/manga should be held to a different notability guideline due to the complete lack of reviews, Japanese or otherwise, the fact remains that sources do not exist. Additionally, I would prefer you to avoid bad faith accusations that nobody wishes to improve the article. Again, like I've said before, I would be happy to add the verifiable content such as release information and plot material, but I simply don't see how that would help the page pass this AfD. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  (t &bull; c) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My main issue is whatever you write, you will have to prove it. Keeping this article is meaningless if it's near devoid of content. The last time, i asked in Japan project for someone willing to look for Japanese reliable proofs of notability and guess what, i was royally ignored. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 09:23, 19 March 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.