Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PQ Angels


 * 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. Consensus is that coverage of the subject is insufficient. Any redirect is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

PQ Angels

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable manga series. Does not appear to have even been published in tankōbon form. Unsourced BLP issue as well. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Prod removed by User:Jinnai with note that "passes criteria #5 on BK" and further note at Anime/manga project that "PQ Angels should pass criteria #5 of WP:BK as Takeuchi and SM have been the study of multiple scholarly reviews and used as examples in several of my own college animation classes." however I do not agree that Takeuchi is in any way "historically significant" enough to have all of her works fall under BK#5. This series does not inherit notability from Takeuchi and is unnotable on its own. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge (see discussion below for merge reason) per criteria i have already listed. Her impact on the bishojo and magical girl genres has had lasting effects that still reverberate throughout the manga and anime industry and beyond. Her manga, the anime adapted from it, and she herself has been the subject of multiple scholarly reviews about the impact on the art style and it's impact on multiple industries across multiple contintents. Much like Superman has defined the Superhero genre, her most notable work, Sailor Moon has defined the Magical girl 陣  内 Jinnai 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)genre.
 * She is, at best, a won-hit wonder. Sailor Moon was highly popular and a highly notable work. The rest of her unfinished, dropped short works are not, nor is she historically significant, only Sailor Moon was. Her ONE manga had impact, not all of her works. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: While Naoko Takeuchi is well known for her work on Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon, it is the only thing she is known for and is not "historically significant". To be "historically significant", one needs a large body of highly notable work which is regularly a subject of academic study instead of one highly successful work. This disqualifies the subject for criterion #5. But the work was very short lived with only 4 chapters released before it was canceled. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would be good to discuss who are those "historically significant" mangaka. That means not just "Tezuka" as manga can't be just reduced/limited to him. KrebMarkt is cursing flawed perceptions, including his, limited to what is translated in each language and/or commercially successful. --KrebMarkt 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To be "historically significant" requires a number of things. The first is that they are prolific writers or artisans. This means that they have a large body of work and that much of that work is notable. The second is that they have had long lasting influence on the industry and other writers and artisans in the field that is well documented. And third is that a significant portion of their work is the subject of academic study. In short, it will be someone listed as either top or high on the WP:ANIME/ASSESS importance scale. However, not every manga artist who is ranked with such high importance will have their works automatically pass WP:BK #5. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Where do you get that from? I don't see the first in any way from #5. That they have a lasting influence on the industry, how long and how much? As for #3, well that is the presumption, but that goes back to #1. How much work is required? I do not see them needing to be prolific per criteria #5. FE: Would Akira Toriyama suffice? 陣 内 Jinnai 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @TheFarix I can't agree with your criterion but this is not the place to discuss lengthly of this. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Have any references been searched for here? Surely there must be more than just the one for A.N.N. Knowledgekid87 10:31, 27 September 2009 (AT)
 * Yes, they have. No other in English other than SM fansites which mention it as another o fher works and Wiki mirrors, neither of which of course are reliable sources. Same thing with the Japanese references, and considering it appears it was never even published, the JA article has the one line noting it was written and never published in volume form, and giving a list of characters. That's it. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - A cursory Google search shows tons of links and sites devoted to the series, and BK#5 applies quite well. It seems there is little doubt it is widely known in its genre. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fan sites and scanslations are not reliable sources nor indicators of notability. Can you actually point to reliable sources that give any significant mention of this work, not passing mentions on a Sailor Moon fansite. And no, BK#5 does not apply at all. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fan sites maybe are not completely RS (I am not an expert on manga), but the huge amount of sites dedicated to the subject demonstrates, in my opinion, the notability of the subject, in the essential meaning of the word -a large amount of people people know it, read it, talk about it. Policies and guidelines are good and well, but they should be applied with a grain of elasticity as per WP:NOTLAW, without forcing ourselves, as another editor said once, to be strict constructionists. In this case, there is plenty of outside evidence of the notability of the subject. Each possible source maybe is not enough, but the sheer amount of them shows that, in my opinion, the article is best left standing and possibly improved. As for BK#5 applying, I guess we're in "to each one his/her point of view" territory. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not a single RS about it and fan sites are not RS at all. Most simply copy off each other or from here while noting a list of her works. That does not confer any notability of the subject at all, particularly when the bulk of those results are redundant links, mirror sites, and illegal scanslation sites. If a Google search conferred notability, that would make me notable at 47,900 hits for my user name alone. And, FYI, "huge amount" of sites is paltry compared to legitimately notable manga. Her truly notable series, Sailor Moon gets almost 7 billion hits, not the less than just over 91,000 PQ Angels get. There is no outside evidence of notability of this work at all. It was never even published beyond its serialization. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right it doesn't show evidence of notability, but it does show evidence that it may exist. No one has imo clearly demonstrated how BK#5 doesn't apply. Farix has just stated his own interpretation of it, which he is entitled to, but myself, and it seems others, do not agree with that. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If your idea of manga notable enough to be on WP is Sailor Moon, I personally think your opinion to be a bit too restrictive. I may self-declare as an inclusionist (mostly), and as such being on a side of the "include/delete" spectrum, but I think even most strong deletionists would agree that manga or anime less notable than Sailor Moon deserve inclusion. As for your user name, on my Google makes 5600 hits :), and it doesn't seem you have a huge fanbase or entire websites devoted to you -if you do have, I'd support inclusion of an article on you. Also, the fact that fansites copy each other in my opinion is not problematic: it just means that they do not need to reinvent the wheel each time. But they are nonetheless interested in covering the subject. This for sure means something. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I was speaking purely of Takeuchi's works, of which only Sailor Moon is notable enough for inclusion at this time. There are plenty of manga who have not meet such fame that have articles on Wikipedia which are notable enough to have them. That does not mean that ALL manga should have them, nor is Takeuchi "historically significant" enough to just go "oh well, she wrote it, so it gets an article." My google hits show 47,900, but likely you spelled it wrong (very common). And its easy to make a fansite. I could make myself 10 in 10 minutes or less. Fansites are not indicators of notability nor reliable sources for just that reason. Anyone can toss up a fansite, and rip off other people's content under the idea that is easier to steal than to be creative. Anyway, its obvious this is a pointless discussion. In truth, you have not found nor produced a single reliable source to back up your claim nor to even validate that this work exists beyond illegal sites and fansites (none of which are reliable, and there fore can not be used to me WP:V. Further, there is no coverage of this work at all, significant or otherwise, in any reliable source. Even the biographies about Takeuchi do not mention this one. There is no argument of "evidence of notability" because there is none by Wikipedia standards, no matter what fan standards you want to apply. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Ghits: I copied-and-pasted your username, 5060 hits here. Who knows. Anyway, it's the kind of hits that can have some weight in the discussion. You say that "anyone can do a fansite", which is true, but the fact that thousands of people go and actually make a fansite on that single subject must mean that there are thousands of people who care about it. This means, in my opinion, that the subject is notable in the broad sense that there is a substantial number of people who acknowledge its existence. Even if this is not strictly WP:N, my personal opinion is that it must have some weight in the discussion. I have no "fan standards" because I actually have almost no knowledge nor interest in manga. It just seems to me to be something notable in its own respect. That's it. I'd say we can agree to disagree and move on. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  02:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of Farix''' (t &#124; c) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you there. True, in English there isn't any internet sources and it appears past results haven't shown any internet sources to exist, but that's just it; everyone here is talking purely of internet sources for a work by a historically important author.
 * However, I would be fine with a merge (not a redirect) to Takeuchi's article as a compromise. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (and not a mere redirect) fine for me too. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  02:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that the work is notable by finding reliable third-party sources. You can't simply allude to "sources exists" without actually providing the sources. At best, this should only be a redirect as there is nothing to merge. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You, and Colletonian, did not follow WP:BEFORE either. Collectonian put those tags up and prodded the same day. As soon as I removed the prod you brought this to AfD. You did not consider a merge, or even a redirect and gave short notice on a "historically signifigant author"'s work. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Naoko Takeuchi is not a "historically significant" manga creator. She has only had one successful manga series in her entire career. The rest have been very short lived or simply dropped with no other critical reception. That's not a hallmark for someone's whose entire body of work would qualify under WP:BK#5. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Takeuchi may be "historically significant", but not enough to grant an article to every single minor work of her. If PQ Angels deserves to be kept, why not allow an article for every single manga created by Osamu Tezuka, Akira Toriyama, Go Nagai, Yoichi Takahashi and every other "historically significant" manga author? PQ Angels did not even have that much of an impact as a manga and it wasn't the first manga canceled for problems between a publisher and an author. If she had that big an influence in the Shoujo genre with Sailor Moon and that's enough to keep such a minor work like PQ Angels, then also Nagai redefined the genre with Cutie Honey and all his minor works deserve an article in the Wikipedia, no matter how small they are, if they have no tankobon or if they are only know by manga experts. Osamu Tezuka is the most "historically significant" manga author but that's not enough reason to keep an article for all of his more than 700 manga series. Not even Miguel de Cervantes has such treatment for his minor works. Jfgslo (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. BC Rocky (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now) She's certainly a notable and historically significant mangaka, but this work isn't particularly so nor does it seem to have the breadth of coverage needed to meet our requirements. That could change, but only if she picks it back up and the coverage of her work meets our criteria. When and if that occurs, I don't see a reason the article should not be recreated but at this time I have to !vote for deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Contra Farix, as best I can tell from the wording of WP:BK #5, a creative artist can be historically significant for just a single work provided it is influential enough (Don Quixote, anyone?). From the influence of Sailor Moon alone, I believe Takeuchi is one of the handful of historically significant mangaka. That said, I'm now going to contradict myself and say merge to Takeuchi's article (and trim to avoid undue weight) even though I take it to pass WP:BK #5, on the grounds that it's not enough of a work to warrant an article: four serial chapters which were lost and never reprinted in volume form. If it's somehow rescued from the dustbin of the publisher and thus of history, no prejudice against recreating the article again -- but until then, WP:PRESERVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Naoko Takeuchi, there is already a short summary of the series on her wiki article page. - Knowledgekid87 15:37, 1 October 2009 (AT)
 * 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.