Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockin' Heaven


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockin' Heaven
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable manga series. Unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM. Only minor not of notability is that its last volume was #12 on the Oricon comic rating, but no other volumes placed and it has no other news coverage or other accolades/reviews. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the writer has previously published a bestseller, then the work is notable from being created by him.  I believe that is what the rules state.  Also, what manga review sites are considered legitimate references?  Because I see it listed all over the place, and its sold on Amazon. Dream Focus (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. See WP:BK, nor is she is a bestselling writer. Also, it is NOT sold on Amazon. The links you posted on the article's talk page are not Amazon listings, but seller's marketplace listings for the German edition. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep and clean up. It's written like a fan site now, but with all the junk removed it could at least be an ok stub.  But I'm not too attached; it seems that the manga's actual author hasn't "previously published a bestseller," but collaborated with someone else who did, so it might not be very notable. Politizer talk / contribs 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Simply being sold on Amazon does not make a manga notable. Being written and illustrated by a manga creator who previously worked on another notable manga doesn't make the first manga notable via inheritance. There is nothing in the notability guidelines about making it on a bestsellers list. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not via inheritence, but via common sense. Not covering all the work of a notable person would make their article incomplete. Besides, WP:NOTINHERITED wasn't written for this purpose. It was written to avoid bios on people who shared a stage with a notable person or were present at a notable event without actually doing something themselves. Actually literally it refers to people with family connections. (Besides, sometimes notability can be inherited. WP:MUSIC: "a band is notable if it has a notable member". And we define notability in all sorts of ways coverage in reliable sources, having won notable competitions. We don't see those as inheriting either.) - Mgm|(talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we cover all works of a notable person. On the article about that person. Merge to Mayu Sakai. Doceirias (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's increasing looking like there is no evidence that the manga creator is notable either. --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Article asserts it has been licensed by Tokyopop in Europe (I assume that's Tokyopop Germany) and Planet Manga in Italy. The two-licensors guideline of WP:MOS-AM has been disputed, but if verified, the series passes that. Secondarily, I note that any series that survives to 8 volumes worth of chapters has more than a little popularity going for it -- girls can be even more vicious in the publisher's feedback than boys -- and popularity like that usually translates into notability, in sources in the language of origin. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are confirmed. Tokyopop Germany has released six volumes so far. Planet Manga's site also confirms the license, with 3 volumes out and 2 due in 09. However, as noted, the MOS-AM notability addition has been disputed as invalid and, if that's the only sign of notability, I think for now, at best it should be userfied somewhere.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:MOS-AM #6. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither a manual of style or a WikiProject can establish notability criterion outside of the notability guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that per consensus at the project, it has now been agreed that the MoS Notability is invalid. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (speedy) Keep Uh, yeah. This is an ongoing series with eight published volumes and notable names behind it, along with a multinational release. Joke nomination? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't a "joke" nomination. Being an on-going series is irrelevant (as is its length). Nor is the author particularly notable (despite the articles a fan created for her gushing about her everywhere). In truth, she isn't notable at all. Four verified series, most 2 volume ones, none licensed for English release, and no significant coverage in reliable sources either. Again see both WP:BK and WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being licensed for English release is not a criterion for anything. Being licensed in Germany and Italy is good enough as notability is not language specific. Something which is notable in one language is notable period. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No where in the notability guidelines does it state that being published in other languages makes a work notable. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but wouldn't basic logic an common sense dictate that nobody would waste time and money licensing, translating, and publishing a "non-notable" work, let alone, MULTIPLE companies in multiple languages? If the notability guidelines don't cover it, I say WP:IAR. 76.116.247.15 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The argument about the lack of notability is weak, when two other foreign language Wikipedia have an article about the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS On top of that, the standards for inclusion in foreign language Wikis does not transfer over to the English language Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject is available in multiple countries and multiple Wikis, I'm sure we can find a criteria for inclusion. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the existance on other Wikis is completely irrelevant. Most other wikis, quite frankly, do not have tough inclusion guidelines and, as many have fewer editors than this one, far more bad content is overlooked. Again, significant coverage in reliable third party sources is needed, not a handful of fans of the author making pages in wikis that anyone can edit (there is a reason no wiki is a reliable source, including our own). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Edit Userfy (see below) for the sake that it is publisher in a third country | Marvel Panini France publishes it My position is to prevent a English speaking centered bias. Things likes i don't care, it's not published in English. is WP:BIAS --KrebMarkt 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Edit The publisher belong to the same holding than the italian publisher but the french translation had to done & paid for.--KrebMarkt 16:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That don't exempt the article to bring reliable sources & citation. In that context, reliable sources are criticals. --KrebMarkt 16:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, where in any of the notability guidelines, and why doesn't that being published in other countries is a criterion for notability? And why does WP:BK leave the publications in other countries out of its criteria? Instead of pointing to an actual notability guideline, all you've been dong is making things up and calling it a notability criterion. --Farix (Talk) 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : I have now information about an upcoming release in Spain, the Panini holding is striking again see here : Panini releasing it in Spain ? That would bring the languages coverage from german, italian, french to spanish. Userfy is probably the best solution until a publisher decide to release it in english. A keep can't be hold due to the difficulty to provide reliable sources & references and counter checking them. An outright delete can be perceive as people pouting because it's not available legally in their favorite language english.--KrebMarkt 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep If it has been published in at least three countries (besides Japan), I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt that it's likely there are at least some reviews of it out there.--Cattus talk 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then go find them. Simply using publications/translations in other countries/languages is a horrible standard in determining notability. --Farix (Talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The series has been published professionally in three languages by an established mangaka. How many graphic novels can you find that share that scope of availability and influence? Estemi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a few, actually, particularly actually notable manga which may be published in some 10 languages, including English, and have plenty of coverage in reliable sources, rather than just being a bare blip in even ANN. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the existence of several publications as a standard. I just used a bit of common sense, that if several publications exist, reviews must exist too. The multiple publications being an indication that reviews - which I did use as a standart - probably exist. --Cattus talk 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment just above. Estemi (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this results in a keep result, I'm going to take that over to WP:BK to see if being published in multiple languages and/or countries should be included in the criteria, since that is the reasoning used by all those arguing for keep. --Farix (Talk) 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think publishing companies around the world pick up a series if it isn't successful? That's not how things are done.  If it isn't selling well in one nation, it won't be picked up by publishing countries in others. Dream Focus (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not bases on sales, but on coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Actually, yes, they would. From actual discussions with people in the manga industry, they don't look at what other countries are doing as they have different audience make ups. They look purely at the work and its reception in Japan. Also, it would seem to be pretty telling that Tokyopop Germany licensed the title, but not the main Tokyopop company for release in either North American nor the United Kingdom). Obviously only one thought it was worth publishing. And, agian, you don't know the series was successful. There isn't even sign it was that successful in Japan, and publishing companies do gamble based on their overall sales. There are actually several series licensed by English publishers that were practically unknown in Japan. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've found what seems to be a review in German. Can't tell if the site can be considered a reliable source.--Cattus talk 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The last volume published was actually volume 8, and it was printed last November. I've actually been working on the article from behind the scenes (although I wasn't logged in, haha) and gave information on the vomic. I've read nearly the entire series so I think I can extend the plot summary a bit more. If we can't keep the characters section, can we at least keep the vomic cast information? I thought that was very resourceful. (Also, for some reason, when I Google the article, the article remains the same before everyone made those heavy edits. Is it a cookie problem?) Blackarcadia (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with Collectonian's heavy editing of that article, you can click history, and then click undo next to her name. You can also make a character page for that article, named List of Rockin' Heaven characters, and put the information there.  Some people like short articles with as little information as possible, others like them long and detailed.  It all depends on who is around at the time to edit and post about it. Dream Focus (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not encourage other editors to do inappropriate actions like that. Creating a character list for an article already under deletion discussion is beyond inappropriate, and extremely excessive. It will just be redirected or deleted. Not every series gets a separate character list nor should the be created automatically or out of a bad attempt to present inappropriate content. The character information was properly merged into the plot because it was repetitive. Also "Some people like short articles with as little information as possible, others like them long and detailed. It all depends on who is around at the time to edit and post about it." this is blatantly false. There is a Manual of style for anime/manga articles which we follow, along with other guidelines (those ones you have been dismissing all over the place), such as WP:SUMMARY, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT that provide clear guidance on what is and is not appropriate content for an article. It has nothing to do with people liking short articles or long articles. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the manual of style. I'm sure we can figure something out with the characters without having to reinstate the plot. Maybe we can shorten the plot section a little, and include more character depth on some of the characters (i.e. remove the part about Akira being uneasy with her friendship with Sawa). I just want to try this because later on in the series, each character has their own "complexes", so to say (i.e. Tsubaki's protectiveness of Ran is because he is in love with him), and there are some extra stories that include more background behind the characters (i.e. there's an extra story about all the characters at age 5). Shall I try something...? Blackarcadia (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I'll wait until whether it has been decided that we'll actually keep the article. Call me if we decide to keep it. :D Blackarcadia (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want a complete article with everything you want and desire in it, check out the wikia. Its owned by wikipedia, but they have ad banners to pay for everything, and you can make as many pages and upload as many images as you want. http://gantz.wikia.com/wiki/Gantz_Wiki See how detailed everything is there? After she mass deleted stuff on the Gantz page, which I still disagree with since you can't understand the series without more information than that, I just put it all over on the Gantz wikia, and added things even. Anyone can adopt a wikia. I'll help you out if you decide to get one. Since most people are voting to keep this article, I assume it'll be kept. Just strip down what you consider to be the bare minimum necessary for each character. Maybe check out the Inuyasha page, and see how they do things. If you have enough main characters, you can make a seperate page for it. Think about how many issues the character has been in, and how crucial they are to the series. Dream Focus (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but even if we have a characters listing, I'll admit it'll probably end up small. There are a lot of main characters, but they are not in-depth as much as the characters from InuYasha are. Ogawa doesn't get a lot of development, and it just seems that out of the core group, the most notable would be Ran, Sawa, Tsubaki, and Akira. Sugishita, Taguchi, and Kido would come up a near second. I've been keeping up with Japanese and Chinese RAWs (and making out stuff with my mediocre language skizzles) so I'm willing to help out with this article. We should wait a little bit more and see what the others say though. (Eh, if this article gets deleted I'll probably just create a fan site because I adore this series~) Blackarcadia (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk page, as this is not really the place for this discussion. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is precisely series like this that I think that WP:BK should have a criterion along the lines of "has been translated, or licensed for translation, into N languages". As an IP above put it, "wouldn't basic logic an common sense dictate that nobody would waste time and money licensing, translating, and publishing a "non-notable" work, let alone, MULTIPLE companies in multiple languages?" This is along the lines of the WP:BK criterion of winning an award or the WP:MUSIC criterion of having a song chart or the WP:POLITICIAN criterion of having held a sufficiently high office: it's not these event per se that make the subject notable, but that these are markers that can make us pretty confident that more material is out there, even if we don't have it in hand at the moment. Which goes in hand with the official policy that we don't have to have everything in hand yet. That we do not (yet) have such a requirement means that I'm likely to be discounted by the closing admin as not supported by guidelines, but so be it. Lasting as long as it has in Japan and several other publishers putting their money where their mouth is sufficiently indicates a level of notability that I'm confident that eventually this series can be shown to meet WP:BK #1. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:03, 21 January 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.