Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenimyu


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenimyu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed PROD. Lengthy, unsourced and unencyclopaedic WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of performances and list of cast lists. No indication in Google News or Books of substantial third party coverage. Even if such coverage does eventuate, it is likely that the article will need rewriting from scratch HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me if I'm doing anything wrong, but I somehow wanted to share my though on this matter. As it's creating quite a commotion among some fans. Towards outsiders this page might indeed seem to be really lengthy, unsourced and encyclopaedic. In short it seems to have no "greater" value. This enormous "performance/cast list" though has much value among the fans of this Japanese musical production, who can't read Japanese and therefore the official site (where probably all information stated in this article can be found). The whole series has over 20 shows and it's nearly impossible to remember each and every cast name. Therefore this page is probably most of the time used as a useful checklist to find one of the X actors who started their careers through this musical. I do agree this article might need some revision, as the same information might be given in less words, but finding the right way to do so might be quite hard. --Epeir Riku (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia does not exist to provide "a useful checklist to find one of the X actors who started their careers through this musical." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Wikipedia exists to prove such a checklist. I just tried to explain why this page is important to a lot of fans of the production. Unfortunately something like that is hard to understand if you aren't into the fandom. Anyway, isn't Wiki supposed to be an "encyclopedia"? My dictionary still tells me an 'encyclopedia gives information'. This page clearly gives information, and whether or not it's relevant to everyone shouldn't matter. --Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Right now the article is unsourced and doesn't explain the importance of this show to outsiders, for whom WP is written not fans. Borock (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would there be a need to write down why this is important, while usually only the people who know why this page is important look at it? Besides that, this isn't a topic you'll easily find sources about... or any sources that'll mean anything to the average reader, as almost everything will be in Japanese.--Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So then suggest maintenance, the standards of Wikipedia has risen over the years and people tend to just copy what is there.--MissEzri (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggested maintenance: (i) Delete the unencyclopaedic list of performances and list of cast lists. (ii) Find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (iii) Write an article that gives WP:DUE weight to what these sources say about the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You make MissEzri's argument for xem. No step there involves use of the deletion tool, and all of that can be done by ordinary editors with the ordinary editing tool.  What you are describing is cleanup.  We even have cleanup tags, such as cleanup-rewrite, for it.  AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, just (i) deletion of the entire contents of the article & (ii) finding apparently non-existent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. Yes, the cast lists are excessive and a lot of it is duplication, so that needs fixing right away.  But that said there is a core of notability in all this: the cast has a lot of blue links, and it's been popular enough to run for 8 years and be performed in 3 countries.  At a bare minimum this could all be summarised in The Prince of Tennis article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so "the cast ha[vaing] a lot of blue links" does not bestow notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not by itself, no, but generally attracting notable actors is a strong indication that a show is notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, I agree... it's really lengthy and needs some cleanup. But it'll be really hard to find any "reliable sources" to write more about it as anything written about it will be Japanese...--Epeir Riku (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Epeir Riku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you cannot "find any [third party] 'reliable sources'", then the topic is not notable, and should be deleted. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here's a review from Dengeki Online, and here's another from Oricon Style. Both are very reliable sources. I'm sure there are others; these were found within the first couple minutes of a brief search. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither source appears particularly reliable (media rather than solid news sources), and neither provides much depth of coverage. Both appear to be more puffery than a serious treatment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Appearances can be deceiving, and your response indicates your complete lack of knowledge in this area. Both Dengeki Online and Oricon Style are very reliable sources for Japanese popular media topics (movies, music, manga, anime, books, etc., and since this is a play based on a manga and anime series, it fits right in) Both are considered reliable sources by both WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Anime and manga. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "media rather than solid news sources" mean? If its a reliable source, then its notable coverage.  Not everything has to be print media.   D r e a m Focus  11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Stubify There is just no getting around it. This article is a complete train wreck and I don't see any content, save for the lead section, that can be salvaged. However, there does appear to be enough coverage by reliable source to establish the notability of the subject. I'm almost tempted to say delete and recreate as a stub, but I don't think the article is completely unsalvageable. I'll also recommend moving the article to The Prince of Tennis Musical or Myūjikaru Tenisu no Ōji-sama as that is the actual name of the subject. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Best to work with what is there, than erase it and hope someone gets around to rewriting it to your high standards.  D r e a m Focus  11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would this have ever been PRODded if it had been on Broadway? Or even off-Broadway? Notice the CSE hits seem to have some useful hits. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 18 January 2011 (GMT)
 * My understanding is that most Broadway musicals tend to be subjected to fairly intense critical review -- "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which does have some degree of relevance to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously believe this ran for 8 years and in 3 countries and the press totally forgot to review it? Sure, there might not be English-language sources, but I find it incomprehensible that this wouldn't have been reviewed at all. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging from the endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless endless cast lists that is the vast bulk of article, and the TOTAL LACK of anything even vaguely resembling a review or critical discussion of the subject, then YES! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Al right, third-party sources and more "substantial" information have been added. I'm still working on the whole cast list part (and some other details). So, is it's existence getting more value now? Or am I missing some really "substantial" parts that need to be covered in on this page? (And yes, some references are bare. But it's hard to cite a site, while it doesn't say when or by who it has been written. It's "to be trusted" though, because it's the official site... Still working on it, to find a 'satisfactory solution' to this problem) --Epeir Riku (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The amount of third-party sourced information is tiny in comparison to the vast screeds of unsourced/primary-sourced information. Articles should, in the majority, be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. Please read WP:MOSLINKS -- you should at the very least provide the title of the webpage being cited as part of that link. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion for the talk page of the article. Harassing everyone who differs in opinion to you here is not productive. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 04:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for not putting a reference after every sentence. xD If you really want to, I can do it, because all the information can be found in the articles already referred to. Besides that, a lot of information if gathered from watching the actual shows, so do I need to refer to all the musicals in that case? (btw, don't expect me to find a huge amount of sources in just a few days. I also have a life besides that internet you know)--Epeir Riku (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample coverage has been found from reliable sources. Also, common sense indicates its notable, for anyone who took the time to read the article.  A musical based on a manga becoming so popular it was shown throughout many major theaters in various nations.   D r e a m Focus  11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup drastically. I'd point out that being able to find information (or not) via google is not a touchstone for notability, especially for non-Western media. --moof (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs clean-up. And as a Japan expert (even though I am still undergraduate), I can guarantee this isn't just "some media". (and I agree on that google thing) If I need to, I could write a complete essay about the changes this production caused and the way it effects Japanese life. But to be honest, that would take quite some research (well, need to prove I don't just make it up, right?) and since I don't have the time to do the research... ^-^ --Epeir Riku (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep An AfD is not a solution to cleanup, per above I see some things have been found reguarding sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2011 (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.