Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranma Vol. 32


 * 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. NawlinWiki 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ranma Vol. 32

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Can't recall that an individual volumes of manga were notable. Article is entirely recaps of each chapter, a possible violation of WP:NOT. No reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   —Confusing Manifestation 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per if not WP:NOT then at least a liberal interpretation of WP:EPISODE (based on perfectly straightforward interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:ATT) - if there are no reliable third-party sources discussing Ranma Vol. 32 (and I highly doubt that there would be), then the article shouldn't be there. Confusing Manifestation 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per if not WP:NOT then at least a liberal interpretation of WP:EPISODE (based on perfectly straightforward interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:ATT) - if there are no reliable third-party sources discussing Ranma Vol. 32 (and I highly doubt that there would be), then the article shouldn't be there. Confusing Manifestation 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That said though, it really kind of sucks in its present form. Why is there an article on Volume 32 but not the previous 31 anyway? Further, why is none of the basic information about its publication or anything else present, even though it would be totally possible to write that part with 10 minutes of thought? On top of that, it's at the wrong title. So... I'm not sure what to vote here. Disagree with all the arguments for deletion, but I really don't care, perhaps? Keep anyway, it wouldn't take much to bring it up to standard. --tjstrf talk 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a book, from a notable series, published by a notable publisher, and by a really notable mangaka. So based on that I don't see any reason this wouldn't be notable enough for an article by our notability standards. (WP:BK is the applicable one.) Reviews and the like would be simple to find as well, whether in English or otherwise, and aren't present simply due to lack of effort on the part of the authors.
 * Delete last I checked, individual volumes aren't notable enough for their own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Individual books in a series are indeed notable enough for their own articles. Certainly, it's not the standard way of organizing information on manga series, but as I laid out above, there should be no notability issue here. Have any other reason that I didn't address which you're using to say it's not notable? --tjstrf talk 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Same reason individual DVDs aren't notable. Is there any 3rd party info on them? Is there something that makes it stand out from the other 31 volumes? Individual books often have 3rd party RS, and if they don't they stay within the author or series's article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * RS of what? The book's existence, or critical reviews and the like? The first is incredibly simple to find, the second would probably require a magazine archive but still almost certainly exists since Ranma is a rather major series (though in my opinion, it doesn't deserve it). In fact, reviews are far more commonly done on a volume-by-volume basis than for series as a whole. As for individual DVDs not being notable, groups of 5 of them are. --tjstrf talk 03:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical reviews and such, it's obvious that it exists considering I have it. We already have a lists of manga chapters. I don't see any need to separate then by volumes, especially since not all volumes contain the same chapters. Volumes differ between countries and companies who translate them. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete What next, articles on individual comic magazine issues? Articles on a single novel chapter? Because this isn't much better. I also don't know of another case where we create articles for each individual manga volumes, or even individual DVD releases. And considering the length of most manga series, such practices is absurd. --Farix (Talk) 03:09, 4 July 2007 (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.