Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE


 * 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. Nothing approaching reliable sources at the moment. As was mentioned, though, might be a case for merging into a larger (as yet non-existent) article on fanfic in this area. If anyone wants to try this, please contact me for the deleted material. Black Kite 00:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE

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

Delete (per nomination) Notability; this is an unlicensed fanfiction (doujinshi) which NO major industry source or review site has ever mentioned; no links to a reliable news source have been provided (links to a fansite dedicated to fanfiction don't count either) the only defense against this "notability" charge has been number of google-hits; by that logic "Evangelion hentai porn" gets a lot of hits but that doesn't elevate any of it above the level of unlicensed, unofficial fanfiction. Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NN doujinshi (aren't they all?). Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something is not notable simply because its doujinshi, or is there another reason you believe it failed a notability test? Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, the "aren't they all?" was a snide comment (hence it's apparence in brackets like these. It's meant as a comment not really pertaining to my opinion to why it should be deleted). I believe it fails WP:RS and WP:N. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I cited WP:V in my refusal to ax on csd grounds, although I felt that the csd folks had some jsutification for the request. I think it could be kept, but if it is I think it would do better merged into a larger article like "Evagelion fan fiction series" or something of that nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be a topic for later discussion, but I point out that I don't think that fan-fiction for any major series gets even a subheading on say "list of media" or something. All fictional series have fanfiction and anime quite a bit.  This doesn't mean it should be on here just because a few dedicated fans of it are trying to force it on the rest of us. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More than a "few" dedicated fans exists for this series, as I believe I have demonstrated in the talk page of the article. It is highly praised on many Evangelion sites, and I believe that makes it notable. Dream Focus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. I can just as easily "cite" many Eva sites that do not like it; no, most of the talk page was tepid at best about incorporating this:  Dream you are sounding increasingly like one fan trying to foist your own minority opinions on everyone else.  --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm an Eva fan, and I don't think this needs an Encyclopedia article... The author of the vid is non-notable, and the vid hasn't been mentioned in a reliable source (Such as Manga Magazine, TOKYOPOP, etc).  If it had a mention there, then maybe keep Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete doujinshi can be at least theoretically more notable than fan fiction because doujinshi are sometimes sold in shops in Japan (due to some odd legal loophole) and on accasion are created by notable artists. This one, however, is both non-notable by our standards and lacking the reliable sources necessary for an article: the only source at all is a link to a Google video.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added additional references and discussed them on the talk page.  Well established manga review sites, that mention it quite favorably, and which have a rather large number of hits per month, I believe count as good sources.  I used www.trafficestimate.com to see how many hits they had.  Why isn't this voting shown on the talk page of the article? Dream Focus (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All you did was link to MyAnimeList, a social networking type site which attempt to list every anime and manga ever made. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All the major sites do the same. They list everything, and let people vote on what they think about them.  What guidelines are there for a page to be considered a good reference?  Is there a list somewhere of every single website which has already been determined to be a creditable reference? Dream Focus (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:RSEX. Specifically, there are many sites that attempt to list every (something) in the world, ever.  Merely being listed on a site of this nature is not a claim to notability, and such sites are generally not reliable sources.  Perhaps the most obvious example is that merely being listed on IMDB does not make a movie notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Does http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=5059#rating count as a reliable source though?  Many sites dedicated to manga don't list anything not officially released, so can't be relied upon.  That'd be like trying to check for violent action movies on a site that only reviews romantic comedies.  Is there a doujinshi site out there which counts a valid source?  Does having over 50 thousand hits in a search engine test, when "re-take" AND "NGE" OR "Evangelion" make something notable?  Why are fanmade webcomics based on the Final Fantasy world as a setting, allowed wikipedia articles while things like this or not?  Even those not published anywhere have articles.  If the author of the Re-take series allowed people to view his work page by page on his site, like a webcomic, then would it make any difference?  The wikipedia guidelines do say that a "Google test" or a "search engine test" can be used as a case for something to be notable.  Also, if a blog that the traffic counter says has a significant number of hits per month, gives it a good review, does that count?  Does it have to be from a published magazine or newspaper, even one with fewer readers than the blog or review site?  I read various wikipedia articles today and yesterday but I don't fully understand what makes something a legitimate reference, since the opinions of tens of thousands of people posting around the net about something, should count more than just one guy posting his opinions in a newspaper. Dream Focus (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider MangaUpdates a reliable source, indeed it's very much along the lines of MyAnimeList. But even if we did, let's look at what it actually says: it's been rated by a decidedly-not-earthshattering 127 people, it's never been licensed or professionally published, and it's from a non-notable author (whose only other listed products are two other similar porn fanfics).  This isn't really a debate about sources (though it's great you're looking into what WP considers sources), as even the "sources" seem to confirm the non-notability of this fanfic.  You're obviously both knowledgable and passionate about your topics, but the bottom line here is fanfic/doujinshi/fan-art and related topics are rarely if ever kept, and usually for these very same reasons. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Manga Updates is in fact a copyvio site and should not be used to source anything or used as an external link. But the MU entry is also a directory listing and not a review, so it can't be used to establish notability anyways. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing; we should probably get that blacklisted. Doceirias (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Links to Manga Updates have been removed from all pages in article space. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

....all of the "manga review sites" that were linked to are just fan-submitted review sites making them no better than citing a wiki--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   --Gwern  (contribs) 20:27 12 October 2008 (GMT)
 * Comment: To the closing administrator: I would be appreciative if you could undelete and move a copy of this article to my userspace. (I believe there's a small possibility of salvaging it in the future.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 12 October 2008 (GMT)
 * Delete There are no reliable third-party sources from which notability can be presumed. Dōjinshi, AKA fan fiction, does not inherit any form of notability because it is based on a highly notable work. --TheFarix 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to www.trafficestimate.com the official website at www.kimigabuchi.com has gotten 41,900 visits in the previous 30 days.  Webcomics with less hits per month have their own pages, even if they are unofficial fan fiction based in the world and using characters of another series.  Why is one thing more notable than another?  Why aren't there any EXACT rules set down somewhere?  Having everything based on the opinions of a handful of random people who just happened to be around at the time, seems like a rather odd way to do things. Dream Focus (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Finding bad articles on Wikipedia is not a license to create more bad articles on Wikipedia, any more than witnessing a crime is somehow an excuse to commit other crimes.  These fan fiction articles you mention could probably be speedied or PROD-ed, and if their existance concerns you so much you can do it yourself. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I...I wish you had informed me of this logic sooner, otherwise many hobos would still be alive today....--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline. It is called the General Notability Criteria. A supplementary guideline is the one for books. Popularity and webhits does not mean anything if there are no reliable third party sources covering the topic. --Farix (Talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject is nothing more than a fan-vid, non-cannon to the series. Maybe a mention and link in the main article to the google vid or to a prominent manga site referencing to it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The video is actually from the creator of the series. In Japan they often advertise their manga by showing pages of it like that, with words describing it, and music.  The link to the Google video is because it loads up a lot more faster than the same video on the official website of Studio Kimigabuchi.  By fan-vid you are referring to the video, not the manga though, correct?  The discussion is about keeping the article based on the manga, not the lame video to advertise it.  I believe since it so popular, as the Google test and other aspects have shown, it is notable enough to have its own article.  Its no less valid than say a webcomic, simply because its available in a different format. Dream Focus (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To that, I ask: How many mentions in Reliable Secondary Sources mentions the creator of the original series created this, and has it been published by a publishing company? How many Reliable Secondary Sources make mention of it at all?  And do any Reliable Secondary Sources state that it's canon to the series?  Do any Reliable Secondary Sources mention the Fan Vid or the Manga?  If we can get those, I think this entire discussion is moot, and we can close this and cite the article with it.  Traffic estimates to a website don't count.  Domain name rankings don't count.  What counts are Reliable Secondary Sources discussing it in a non-tangental way? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test The number of hits a search engine says something has, according to the wikipedia rules, can help establish notability. There is more than one way to establish notability, so I don't need references to reliable secondary sources.  The only major website or publications that they consider reliable secondary sources, do not cover doujinshi, so there is no possible way to get a reference for any of them.  Since doujinshi is so popular in Japan, it is highly likely it would be mentioned on some Japanese websites and publications, since it is clearly a popular series(as the number of hits and mentions of it clearly indicate).  But I believe I have proven it notable, and thus the article should remain. Dream Focus (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very mistaken here. A Google Test cannot establish notability based on the number of hits. The purpose for a Google Test is to search for sources, particularly reliable third-party source. To establish notability you must have reliable third-party sources covering the subject in a non-trivial manner. This is required by WP:V, which is policy, and WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. WP:GOOGLE is neither policy nor a guideline and has no influence in determining notability beyond how to conduct a proper Google search. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the idea of the proper use of the search engine test, or ghit. Search engine test can not: Guarantee the results are reliable or "true";Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses;.  So, if ghits are it's only claim to notability, then it fails WP:NOTE. Maybe some cross-wiki work might help here (ie japanese wikipedia). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've conducted my own Google test which excludes Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and forums and it comes up with just over 1,000 hits. The hits don't indicate any coverage by a reliable third-party source, but are simply fan chatter. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried the Japanese wikipedia through Google Translator earlier, and had trouble making things out. I then used Google to only search for things in the Japanese language, but had trouble working through the results using Google translator. Having a large number of people posting about it on blogs and forums, does mean that number of people at least have read it, thus making it notable I think. I still believe it should have an article, so I still vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether you'll admit it or not, Re-Take is incredibly popular. It is already made into a live action movie and will be animated in Zeak's Re-Take Project. Due to these many things involving Re-Take and Re-Take itself, it more than deserves a right in Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia just a place to collect info anyways? What good would you gain from it by saying no? Re-Take has a strong fan base, and even though it may be doujinshi, it is a perfect fit into the end of the show. So in closing, this is way bigger than just some ordinary doujinshi. This is a series of 6, as well as other versions such as All-Ages, very well written pieces of work, a live action movie, and an animated anime of it. That is more than enough reason for keeping this article around because it is so much more than a doujinshiIrkenEvangelion (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the current policy is that fan videos don't really count. The fact that a fan video exists doesn't prove that it is "popular", just that one person put in the effort to do that.  That's the whole "third party" thing; something like ANN needs to be cited.  The bigger problem is that policy does not allow unlicensed doujinshi to have its own articles, and if you or Dream do want it, you'll have to coordinate a policy change on WikiProject Anime and Manga.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor can a keep be stated based soley on you or others liking it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unlicensed doujinshi by non notable author, offers nothing to add to it's "parent" article or associated articles, little to no coverage by reliable, verifiable sources. Myanimelist is by no mean a reliable source (I use it to keep track of my manga reading and anime viewing, but it's information is not always reliable) and any other site attempting to list everything and anything isn't either. Now if this was a doujinshi by Yoshiyuki Sadamoto or Hideaki Anno and had reliable third party sources such as ANN news items, then it would be another matter entirely  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, its an unnotable fanfic that has no significant coverage in reliable sources nor is it written by an actual published manga author (which one might argue was then notable because of who wrote it). And no MAL is not a reliable source, its even less reliable than IMDB. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is published, and links to where you can buy some of his on his official website. And I found mention of him in a Japanese news site, for a different series he did.  If I prove his other work was notable by mention of manga news sites in Japan, would that convince everyone this work should be given an article? Dream Focus (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.kimigabuchi.com/link/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkimigabuchi%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG&usg=ALkJrhipr27_c2rbDC9Xmf-NbX1140jplw here is a list on his website of all the places that sell his work. He also sells things through mail order from his site, but I believe legally can only do so in Japan. Dream Focus (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And? I can write something and get it sold a bunch of places. That doesn't make it notable. Is he actually published by a real publisher, not just himself and not just fanfics? And mention alone is not "significant coverage." See WP:BK for book specific notability guidelines (you've already confirmed it fails the additional anime/manga option of being licensed for released as that would be illegal). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't illegal in Japan, do their copyright laws, and long history of doujinshi. It is published, and sold, and sells well enough to be considered notable. Dream Focus (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know it "sells well" or "is popular"? Even if it was "popular" it needs merit; but just because you like it doesn't automatically mean its popular, and (even if something is popular doesn't mean its good) ; you have to actually justify this with something, under the current rules. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The current rules mention the Google test as one of the legitimate means to prove its notable. You don't get mentioned 50 thousand times if you aren't popular!  So that proves it is popular, and therefor notable.  And it sells well, because it was one of their top ten best selling items at that store.  Hmm... not sure how many sales they make nation wide though.  I believe this is major doujinshi retailer in Japan, thus compared to other doujinshi, its quite popular.  And if its popular, it doesn't need to be good, since being good would be an option, and there aren't many things in this world everyone would agree upon as being good. Dream Focus (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no the "rules" do not. Indeed, they say the opposite that Google hits are NOT a reliable indicator of notability. Neither are sales ranks at a single store. It is not notable and you have yet to provide a single actual source providing significant coverage, only your own assertions that this is a popular piece. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you believe something that got mentioned over 50 thousand times isn't popular? Anyway, it is a published work, sold in many stores throughout Japan, without violating any laws in that country.  I don't see any sales minimum number of sales listed anywhere.  I don't believe published work has to hit the bestsellers list to be counted.  I did find a Japanese research site which said the Doujin industry in Japan in 2007 was at over $700 million USD.  Would an unpopular series be sold at that many stores, over the years?  They had 6 releases after all.  If any of them weren't popular enough to sell well enough to notice, then they wouldn't stock any future ones for sell. Dream Focus (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to go back and reread what WP:GOOGLE actually says. The raw amount if "hits" a search may find is not an indicator of notability. In fact, my more targeted search only brings up just over 1,000 hits, none of which have any indications that the subject may be notable. Notability requires that the subject either meet the general notability criteria or one of the criteria of the subject specific notability guidelines, in this case WP:BK. Re-Take can't pass a single notability criteria and no amount of screaming "It's popular, therefore it's notabile" is going to change that fact. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You seem to be confused. Popularity does NOT equal notability. Being a published work does not mean it is notable (and yes, it does have to hit a best seller list or otherwise have lots of coverage to meet book notability requirements. And the $700 million doujin industry is not attributable to this single book so that has nothing to do with anything, nor does whether the book is stocked or not. Lots of unpopular books are stocked in bookstores. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (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.