Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Baby


 * 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. JForget 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Samurai Baby

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Only 3 volumes, never licensed by anyone. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find evidence of even a Chinese licensed edition, let alone reviews in reliable sources in the West. I note there isn't a ja.wiki article for it, which is usually a sign of non-notability. Absent anyone finding something in Japanese indicating notability, delete as failing WP:BK. A shame, as it's a cute series, but apparently never caught on. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Within my capability, i found no licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German language so no evidence of notability will come from there. Unless enough evidences from Japan or somewhere not mentioned are found, my opinion is delete this article. --KrebMarkt 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no proof of notability. Relevant and independent sourcing is needed Rirunmot (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I do not care too much about this nomination. Please note that WP:BK does not require foreign publication or licensing for notability. The article still lacks the other criteria of notability though, so delete. Cmprince (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true. I was citing whether it's been licensed as a guide to whether it was likely to have gotten any reviews outside of Japan, specifically in a Western country, in languages easier to read. Something of a shorthand, which I probably ought to do less of. (Reviews in Japanese would be even better, but it's routine for Japanese news/media sites to delete content more than a year or two old and block autoarchiving, and so aside from blockbusters, hard to find except for currently running series.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You right on WP:BK. If i focus on non-Japanese licensing it to increase the chance to find evidences of notability from RS in those respective languages and nothing else. In addition saying that it is no licensed in XYZ countries spares time for editors searching evidences of notability. It's pointless to search twice the same area of the web for the same conclusion. About reviews from Japan, i'm more and more skeptic on the very existence of such sources because the western concept of reviewing an anime or a manga may simply not exist outside the academic area (university scholars). Meaning no paper publication or website that wrote criticism regularly on anime & manga in a factual, accurate, documented & independent from publishers way. --KrebMarkt 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to unpack that second paragraph, but I suspect that's a topic best discussed elsewhere (such as WT:MANGA). But for here, I note that for example the mainstream culture magazine Da Vinci does review manga and highlights a series as a sort of editor's pick each month, usually either seinen or josei (unfortunately, not all their features are placed online, and the Platinum Picks get pruned after about 3 years). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I simply don't feel up to start a discussion of that subject on WT:MANGA, don't have the stamina to do so, plus i think the problematic to discuss is beyond what can handle a wikipedia project. To make it short: "Are the western of book reviews, criticisms & analysis, imported cultural concepts in countries like China, Japon or korea?" For now, let say i did not write my second paragraph. Yes, really, i'm sorry to have raised such facepalm reflexion. --KrebMarkt 20:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Published for seven years in a notable manga magazine. Other magazines aren't likely to give reviews of their competition, nor is this sort of thing covered by most sources.  You have to use common sense, and think for yourself, not just wait for someone to tell you its notable because they said so, and decided to published a review somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well currently common sense say that not much in the article can be proved. What can make me believe that the informations are accurate, point of view neutral & containing no original research? Third party RS coverages are here to ensure that and not just that the article can be kept. As far as it can go the article can be "near-emptied" with a strict reading of verifiability policy. I prefer no article than empty husk while some editors like to collect them like seashells. --KrebMarkt 06:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Verifiability? You can check the magazine that publishes it, and see its actually published there.  You just look at their official site, and there it is. And if you look at where they sell the volumes at, you can read the plot summary, and confirm the plot information in the article.   D r e a m Focus  13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An article about a manga should cover the development, reception, or influence of the manga, or show the potential that one of these three things can be written from reliable third-party sources. Simply existing is not a legitimate reason to have an article. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to catalog everything that exists. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Only three volumes in seven years? That could mean one of two things. It's published infrequently which is an indication that it is unpopular, or we don't have a verifiable end date of publication. I would actually assume the latter. But if all we can write about the manga is a plot summary, then common sense will tell us that we shouldn't have an article about it. Encyclopedic articles should contain sourced information about the manga's development, reception, and influence. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gantz was published some months with just a few pages. It is still a notable series, and sells very well.  In fact, it is unusual to get more than a small number of pages at a time of it, and the guy even takes long breaks between releasing anything at all.  Frequency of publishing isn't relevant.  If the publisher is willing to let them release when they feel like it, not having to follow a schedule, and doesn't drop them, then obviously it must be a notable series.  You don't keep something around that long, unless a lot of people are reading it.   D r e a m Focus  13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't published for for over seven years, as KrebMarkt's comment below clarifies. However, notability must be determined on verifiable facts based on reliable third-party sources. Popularity is not the same as notability. Nor is being published make a manga notable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @TheFarix The series ended at volume 3. The publication ending date is just missing. --KrebMarkt 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I assumed the latter. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:38, 14 September 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.