Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puyo (mangaka)


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Puyo (mangaka)

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

I cannot say for certain whether this author evhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puyo_(mangaka)&action=edit&section=T-1en exists; while not a blatant hoax (and therefore not falling under a CSD), there are no sources, no GNews, and very few apparently relevant Google hits as far as I can tell for "Puyo MangaKa"; the most relevant-seeming ones appear to be related to this article, not giving much credibility to the article or credence to there being any notability here. Strong suspicion of a hoax. Tyrenon (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This was easily verified with a simple Google search. Whether or not this person is notable is a different issue entirely, but I will say that you label things as a hoax a bit too easily.  I have mistakenly labeled things as hoaxes but you are doing it daily on things that obviously aren't hoaxes.  It wastes people's time.  The other day you said some media guy was making false claims about working for various newspapers and who wants to be a millionaire etc. but all of it was VERY easily verifiable.  Maybe you need to fiddle with your search engine or browser settings or use a different one or both.  Something is wrong here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The problem is this: GNews gave nothing for the two terms together (Puyo is a city in Ecuador, requiring a filter). Google itself generated hits, but other than the two links to Wikipedia I pulled up most of the hits had to do with either a game called Puyo Puyo, a game called Puyo Pop (which seems to be the same game under a different label) or included stray mentions of the two terms (not uncommon).  The combination of that and a lack of sources after a month does tend to raise a hoax concern.  I'm probably a little too willing to call something a possible hoax, but on balance the number of entries that are either adverspam/self-promotion or blatantly non-notable (i.e. generate few, if any Google hits and have no sources after close to a month in here) is more than somewhat frustrating (particularly when the site, whether it should be or not, is used for a decent amount of sub-college-level research).  Yes, I'm itchy on my trigger finger, but I'm also not doing this to make any points.  There are a lot of articles that really have no place in an encyclopedia that stick around for a very long time. Tyrenon (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're referring to Chip Zdarsky (the only other miscalled hoax I can think of right now, and it fits closely with the description you just gave), I almost got climbed on tagging that. The source it linked to had every indication of being made up nonsense (a pre-dated death date in the one provided source certainly gives the appearance of being the work of a very bored high schooler; had it simply lacked that source, it might have gotten a notability nom, but the level of nonsense didn't just raise my eyebrows), and there was nothing else linked to IIRC.Tyrenon (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was Ellis Watson. You didn't say hoax, you said "tall tale" and said it had "no verifiablity".  Maybe you need to spend more time searching, use these terms for this Puyo guy:  (puyo "haruhi suzumiya" -"puyo puyo").  When I did it I didn't exclude the double puyo term but then you actually have to scroll down to eliminate some video game stuff.  On that apartment complex one, the older Google hits weren't for "Akme ballet" at all, they just included those terms separately, but you didn't seem to notice. Maybe using quotation marks will help narrow things down. If you're going to rely so heavily on Google, slow down and do some creative searching. Sometimes you have to search under a different version of a name or even different spellings.  Frequently names have different spellings when transliterated from non-Roman alphabets, for instance. I am with you on eliminating crappy crap but you'll lose credibility if you don't slow down and be more accurate. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that Google News by default is set up to search for recent stories. Activating archive search is a must. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Animenewsnetwork have 11 news articles that mention him, (providing some verifiability - certainly not a hoax), although I haven't yet looked through them to see if they satisfy the WP:GNG. If he is notable, then it looks like the best sources are going to be Japanese language. Animenewsnetwork show that his name in Japanese is "ぷよ", although this just hiragana so not so useful for a web search. Combining with an associated title might help: or somesuch, but it's all Greek to me. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all the first couple dozen hits on that search are video clips of the anime adaptation. Given the franchise's popularity, sifting out manga-related hits is going to be ... difficult. The manga doesn't seem to have been licensed outside of Asia (there's at least one Chinese edition, possibly a Korean one as well) so finding European reviews doesn't seem likely. We definitely need a Nihongo assist here. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A fair number of Marasmusine's 11 ANN results are not very useful, as Puyo is the artist of only one of the three Haruhi Suzumiya manga. A better place to look for relevant hits is here, the article for the exact title, The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi-chan, from which we can find among other things that this version is a best-seller and that his starting a new series is considered important enough for news reports. I note also that we have list of episodes of the anime adaptation of this particular title. Neither of these alone demonstrates that Puyo meets WP:CREATOR, but they are strongly indicative of notability, enough that more digging is warranted. I further note that no one seems to have interwikilinked the ja.wiki article. That the nominator could not find this easy to find information very strongly suggests that the nominator did hardly any research as required by WP:BEFORE, which deserves a trouting. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I am particularly concerned that the nominator, knowing that a Japanese person is involved, didn't check -- or ask to have checked -- ja.wiki for information. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming the anime is adapted from the manga is misleading; the manga is also an adaption of the novels. The anime and the novels are clearly notable, but I tend to be skeptical of media mix manga like this one; occasionally the creators may go on to do notable works of their own, but drawing a manga based on a popular novel/anime is no more inherently notable than writing a novelization of a movie. Doceirias (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's multiple animes -- one of which is specifically adapted from Puyo's parody version, rather than from the original novels. Your point about writing the novelization of a movie is well taken, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If they created several notable series, they are notable.  D r e a m Focus  15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But he hasn't created "several" -- just one, at least so far. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, he isn't credited as the "creator", but as the illustrator/writer. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG on its own. Good raise  12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I see conflicting claims above about notability and verifiability. The discussion seems inconclusive to me but the failure to add any references to the article is not encouraging. I will go with a weak delete unless or until somebody adds references that show notability to the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as failing WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." <font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources given above verify the author's existence and credits. The issue at hand is whether penning an adaptation that then is then adapted itself into a notable work makes one notable under WP:CREATIVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the issue. Even if the mangaka had illustrated and written a work that was notable enough for a stand-alone article and even if that work had been adopted into another work that was notable enough for a stand-alone article and even if that alone was enough to become notable via WP:CREATIVE (which after re-reading the criteria, I find not even close to being the case), then failling WP:V, which is policy (as opposed to some more or less accepted guideline), would still be ground enough to delete. <tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But he doesn't fail WP:V. Just as Quasirandom said, there are sources in the above discussion that verify the information in the article.  Whether or not he is notable is another question, but I don't see how you can argue that he is unverifiable. Calathan (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that "he is unverifiable". I'm saying that the article topic fails WP:V. I'm saying that we can't write a verifiable article with those sources. There's 11 ANN news stories mentioning the mangaka. Did you look at them? They basically all sum up to "Puyo illustrated an adaptation of The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya." Personally, I'd rephrase that like this: " #REDIRECT The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya ". - The way I understand it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." also means that these sources should provide enough information for us to actually write an article, and not just a redirect. But maybe that's just me. - On a related note, (as I'm starting to get the feeling that I didn't make myself clear on that part either) as far as I can see, the mangaka fails every applicable notability guideline by far. <tt><font size="3" style="color:black">Good <font size="3" style="color:black">raise </tt> 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we disagree on what constitutes enough information for an article. If someone is notable but all that is know about them can be summed up in one sentance, then I think a single sentance article is acceptable (or at least doesn't violate WP:V).  However, I am doubtful that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:N.  Also, I just want to correct you in that he created an adaptaion of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (with no "chan" in it) called The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya (with a "chan" in it).  If this is redirected, the redirect should probably be to Haruhi Suzumiya, since the manga adaptations are covered in that article. Calathan (talk) 05:09, 18 June 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.