Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sket Dance


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sket Dance

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Doesn't even have an Anime News Network entry. Article nothing but huge amounts of plot summary and a list of chapters. Prod removed with reason of "This seems to have recovered nicely and is gaining in popularity in Japan. A deeper search may turn up something useful." However, searches in both English and Japanese have uncovered exactly 0 reliable sources giving the series significant coverage (series was released in Japan as "Sket Dance" so no issue of "mistranslation" of the title). Being "popular" does not equal being WP:N, nor do sales figures configure any notability on a book per WP:BK, including recent discussions upholding this long held consensus. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Books like this exist in a gray area as far as AfD results are concerned, and it's an area I think is worth discussing on a regular basis, as I've seen consensus shift back and forth several times over the last couple of years. The main issue with this article is that it was created too soon - it should have been created after establishing clear notability, either through an anime adaption or an English translation, and the resulting third party coverage. Both of those are reasonably likely outcomes for an established Shonen Jump series. But it is also certainly possible that neither will happen (eg, Mr Fullswing). Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, I agree with Collectonian; this article should not have been created. Which I'm not at all sure about is whether it is worth the time and effort to bother deleting articles like this. Most of them will establish clear notability/clear non-notability in due time. Let it happen then; there's no rush. At the least, articles in this gray area should continue to be discussed. ...this wound up being more half-baked than I originally intended, but at the least, previous AfDs for articles in this gray area have uncovered previously unknown sources, so it's worth forcing a discussion. Doceirias (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is something the anime/manga project has discussed recently, and in the end consensus agreed that manga is best served by being covered under WP:BK, that number of translations/adaptations doesn't establish notability (just possible "signs" of it), etc. This has also generally been upheld in the last 30-50 manga/anime AfDs Being to gray, I think, is also not something that should include keeping completely unnotable series around to see if maybe its licensed, maybe its adapted, maybe... This isn't even a particularly new series, which generally lowers the chance for shonen series to get licensed, at least in English. Now, if it did have multi-adaptions already, or the author was super famous, then I could agree that maybe let the gray sit awhile, see what else happens. Except there aren't, and the author is so unnotable his link just redirects back to this article. So as it is, I just don't see how it can ever be anything more than a lot of plot summary and a list of the volumes/chapters. Nothing else can be verified beyond that, and really other than its existence and rough serialization, nothing else is covered in a third-party source. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep; I agree completely with the eloquent comment above by Doceirias. Coldmachine Talk 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No ANN, No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. Seeing the current state of the article i'm inclined to it in Userfy. I will cast my vote later depending of other editors input. --KrebMarkt 09:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete We can't keep article because we think they'll establish their notability in the future. And even the verifiability policy requires some coverage by reliable third-party source. But one other point is that this manga series has been out since 2007 and it still hasn't clearly established its notability. Just how long are we suppose to wait to see if it does? --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm with Doceirias with this one -- notability does not seem to be firmly established, but there's enough indicators of notability to strongly suggest that it will be easier to do so in the future. This may be crystal-ball gazing, but it's enough that I cannot convince myself to suggest any kind of deletion, even if it does not meet the letter of any guideline to keep it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is, what evidence of notability are y'all seeing. Its serialized...that doesn't make it notable. Even being a longer series doesn't make it notable. Indeed, after 2 years, no adaptations, no OVAs, no significant coverage, nothing but being there and being read. If that is a sign of notable, every romance novel every printed in America would have evidence of being notable :P -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two years, seven volumes, and not canceled yet? In Jump? (And not some third rate romance novel line.) To anyone following the magazine, that's pretty promising. Anime deals usually get announced around volume twelve (give or take) and almost never happen earlier; a series with no hope of merchandising success rarely lasts that long. Circumstantial evidence, but a good deal more reliable in practice than being by a notable author. Doceirias (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That mention of volumes before adaptions is pretty WP:OR. I can think of countless notable series that got adaptions commissioned long before hitting 10 volumes, never mind 12. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Like other manga that are featured in extremely popular manga magazines, maybe it'll be kept, maybe not. Depends on who is around to comment and form a consensus at the time.  I've seen things exactly like this go both ways.  I believe when it has that many readers, successful enough to be kept around long enough to publish its chapters in separate books, then it is notable.  Please use common sense instead of quoting the notability guidelines, which are suggestions not absolute laws.   D r e a m Focus  19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the notability guidelines ARE the codified common sense of the community. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of the very small percentage of wikipedia editors who participated in their creation. The opinions of a few dozen editors or less, does not represent the millions of wikipedia users who have never had a chance to vote on it.   D r e a m Focus  22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines have been discussed and discussed again by hundreds of editors for several years now. They are not going to go away or be ignored because a couple of editors don't like them. --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:BK and Wp:N. No North American/European licensing, no major adaption, possibly Chinese license but these are hard to verify. If someone finds some inkling of proper notability (i.e. not google hits or scanlation/blog/shopping sites, I may be convinced to switch to keep. Doesn't seem likely at face value however Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this work doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:BK. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient coverage, fails WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This thing seems to have potential notability out the wazoo, but is missing that last crucial piece or two to push it over the edge. Above comments seem to indicate that such pieces are roughly as likely as not to magically materialize. Userfy for now. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

*Userfy per most recent !votes. Deletion Mutation 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy After reading your thoughts that the best compromise between work already done and respecting the WP:BK objective criterion. --KrebMarkt 06:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No adequate non-primary sourcing whatsoever; fails WP:BK. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:01, 29 March 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.