Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metamorphosis (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 keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Metamorphosis (manga)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability of the subject cannot be proven through proper reliable sources. Although it undoubtedly has “meme notability” for the sake of websites like Know Your Meme, this is not enough reliable notability to demonstrate that it belongs on Wikipedia. Even if notability could be proven (which a look into potential sources leads me to believe it can’t), the abysmal sourcing and non-relevant content makes it a case of WP:TNT Paragon Deku (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The WP:TNT rationale doesn't hold up - the article isn't perfect but in no way is it unsalvageably bad to the point of requiring deletion (I'm not really seeing significant problems with the content itself - sourcing could be better but it's really not that bad). manga-news.com looks potentially reliable - though I can't really assess the source at a deeper level as I don't understand French. Same situation with kaorinusantara.or.id in Indonesian. Finally, though this isn't cited in the article, the manga was also reviewed by notable YouTuber Akidearest: . WP:NBOOK requires I think this manga does meet that criteria, and therefore is notable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really think a review by a (semi-popular) youtuber really counts towards proving the notability of a novel. There are several notable youtubers who have made references to pornographic novels that don't have their own pages. Something being a popular meme in a niche group doesn't immediately make it article worthy. As for sources, I'll provide a detailed breakdown on the issues with them in chronological order.
 * A blog by an Italian /b/ user that hasn't been active in months and has no provable notability
 * The book itself for publisher information
 * A forum for a retailer that sells the book
 * A Know Your Meme page
 * A review in a modestly notable manga website from France (practically the only good source here as you mentioned)
 * An article about a spinoff from an indonesian website (only mentions the article subject to provide context)
 * An imgur link of a scanlation
 * The website that sells the book
 * The book itself (again)
 * A youtube video (sponsored by the company that sells the book)
 * Besides the fact that there's only one evident reliable source, the article itself has basically nothing besides a sprawling plot synopsis and brief notes that act like a sales pitch more than encyclopedic content. If you took out all the information that comes from Know Your Meme in particular it would have literally nothing but a plot and author notes, hence my TNT comment. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's... not a good TNT rationale. What else would you expect the article to contain? I fail to see how this is a sales pitch - it's written neutrally. The reception section is, well, accurate to what sources report.As for the YouTuber... I think it's reasonable to consider a YouTuber whose job is reviewing manga to be a subject-matter expert, and therefore admissible as a reliable source. That leaves at least three sources that are somewhat reliable providing coverage of this subject - enough to meet WP:NBOOK. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm the creator and principal contributor to this article, and... yeah I really get what OP is getting at. I realize the sources assembled aren't very RS, despite my best efforts to document this niche-famous masterpiece. All I can say is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:PLEASEDONT, but nothing that's not already a shortcut to WP:ATAIDD. I'll just observe and hope for the best. Gaioa  (T C L) 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree with Paragon Deku's source analysis and I also have many serious concerns about this article's sourcing (images of scanlations or other copyright-violating should never be linked to per WP:ELNEVER, and a reference to a scanlation website is in the lead), but in addition to the Manga News review, I also found reviews from Manga Sanctuary and Planete BD, both of which are considered reliable at WP:ANIME/RS in the section for French websites. The other sources in this article are primary or completely unreliable however. As for the YouTuber review, I personally do not believe that counts to WP:GNG as I do not consider many YouTubers to be subject matter experts. Link20XX (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Add those new reviews as sources then. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D8CB:6C50:CCD8:FDD3 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, but Gaioa already did. Link20XX (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep While I do believe this is notable and deserves to be on wikipedia, I can't say much other than affirm the notability of the existing sources and the hentai manga itself. In the event this gets deleted, the page's contents should be preserved and pushed into a list page (Such as list of Internet phenomena) 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D8CB:6C50:CCD8:FDD3 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Reliable sources/Perennial sources bans YOUTUBE encyclopedia wide as a usable reference, so that review is not usable. YouTube reviewers often get financial kick backs from the company's that make the products that they review, so there are inherit COI conflicts with any YOUTUBE reviewers. All of the other sources lack independence with the exception of the one quality source, the French language magazine review. There is simply not enough independent RS to meet our notability criteria. 4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How do these reviews lack independence? There is nothing in any of the three that suggest that. Link20XX (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are problematic; such as the publisher of the book, retailers, and the book itself. The book itself is a primary source, and the publisher and retailers make money off of sales of the book which makes them not independent. Blogs and other personal websites and social media platforms are entirely self published and lack editorial oversight from which we are able to prove both independence and reliability. The only source for which we can prove independence and reliability is the French language magazine review because it is not self published and it is independent from any financial conflict of interest. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the websites of the reviews I linked (Manga News, Manga Sanctuary, and Planete BD) are considered reliable as per WP:ANIME/RS. You can see the discussion as to why they were added here. While I do not disagree about primary sources, or the state of the article, I fail to see why you discount these reliable sources. Three reviews in reliable and independent sources (which you have yet to answer my question as to why these reviews are primary sources) meet WP:NBOOK #1. Link20XX (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll go with the consensus of the project over some of the other websites. Changing to Weak keep based on those sources.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2021 (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.