Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Dog Rilienthal


 * 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. Nobody is for "Keep", so...  Sandstein  15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Super Dog Rilienthal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Manga series that ran for approx 8 months. It ran in Weekly Shōnen Jump but I can't see anything that suggests it's notable by itself. It's author created World Trigger which is notable, but this doesn't seem to be anywhere near as notable. I would redirect to the author page in a case like this but the author doesn't have a page.

The article was created the week the series debuted and was tagged for notability right after. That was in 2009 and google searches have only discovered user blogs, wiki mirrors/other databases and illegal hosting sites. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment It is listed in MADB for 4 volumes. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Should I check on the Japanese Wikipedia? Since the sources are in Japanese there has to be some "review of manga" magazine or something giving reviews... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As is usually the case, the Ja.wiki article has no sources of consequence.This is true of better known works, thats just how ja.wiki is.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly that's true. Therefore I posted at ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers. I checked CiNii with the Japanese title but nothing turns up. Also posted at ja:プロジェクト‐ノート:漫画 WhisperToMe (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some Japanese web pages mentioned this manga, "Super Dog Rilienthal", in Japanese "賢い犬リリエンタール", although I'm not sure if these pages are regarded as reliable source in enwp/jawp, since I usually just translate scientific en articles to ja. Cinii is a search engine for formal articles like "Google Scholar" or "Web of Science", and not good for searching reviews on manga, I think.--Karasunoko (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, please find who publishes otakuma.net and natalie.mu. Do these websites have professional publications with editorial staff and processes? (for example Anime News Network has editor-vetted articles written by staff members) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did try to write a reply earlier but the site was playing up. Natalie is a reliable source, I've seen it cited by Yahoo Japan, and ANN often use it. However the links provided are literally announces about the start and end of the series - nothing we can't source elsewhere. The other site might be usable but it's going to need to be translated the old fashioned if it is usable as RS. The keywords that stick out need context.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Natalie is published by natasha, which is size of 77 employees and has own writers. Otakuma is published by C.S.T.Entertainment,Inc., which seems to be a very small company and doesn't have own writers. I couldn't find whether these companies have editorial staff or processes.--Karasunoko (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Otakuma seems to be an anime/manga/fandom website run by a kabushiki kaisha (C.S.T.Entertainment) which has been in operation since 2009. Just spending a little time looking around on the site, if it's just a fan site it is one of the absolute best ones I've ever seen. It seems to be a cross between ANN and Crunchyroll, since they do news, social media, and streaming. I would say it's acceptable as a reliable source. Natalie is definitely acceptable, too. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The sources are reliable but are they enough to pass WP:GNG? Where would the content for the sources be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The criteria at GNG state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - All we need is the significant coverage and if that exists, even if it may not necessarily be used in the article, it's notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are these just passing mentions or announcements though? To establish notability you have to show notability not just say "refer to the sources". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (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.