Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenshi no Poketto


 * 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   redirect to Mitsuba Takanashi. Arguments that the guidelines are wrong and we should ignore them here were mostly ignored. If you do think that they are wrong, seek out consensus to change them on the appropriate page first. NW ( Talk ) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tenshi no Poketto

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not evidence of notability. A search for reliable sources comes up empty. Disputed prod. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm finding nothing on this one, aside from verifying its existence. As such, it is a valid search term, so selectively merge relevant information to the author -- which in this case amounts to make sure that the listing for it indicates it's a collection of short stories and then redirect (without deleting). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * merge Note that it's no more available in Shueisha catalog. --KrebMarkt 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after 13 years the sales usually die down. You can find it sold elsewhere.   D r e a m Focus  21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A collection of short stories by a notable writer. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and nothing gained by deleting something you have confirmed exist.   D r e a m Focus  21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The author is barely notable and is definitely not historically significant. Books don't inherit notability from the author unless the author is historically significant. And I can turn your WP:NOTPAPER argument around and say that there is nothing to be gained by keeping an article on a subject that isn't notable. Nor is WP:NOTPAPER a free pass for inclusion. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really a turn around. The suggested guidelines are not binding at all, they just the opinions of a very small number of people around at the time to argue until they get their way.  Does it help Wikipedia to remove something some might find interesting or useful to read?  Whether or not a reviewer or two somewhere bothered to mention something, isn't relevant at all.   D r e a m Focus  08:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely incorrect. Guidelines are based on the consensus of a wide number of editors and should generally be followed unless the consensus supposes ignoring the guideline because the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia is harmed. If it was only a "very small number" of editors, then they would not have reached guideline status. However, the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia is not be affected by the presence of this article. Just because you may find a topic interesting doesn't mean that it should be included. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can look at the history of the guideline pages. Most changes are done with less than a dozen people participating.  Millions of users, and only a handful or so change things.  Wikipedia is not a set of rules.  If a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it.  We've been through this far too many times already.  You should not delete, just because whoever last was around to argue the longest got something put into a guideline, to give them an excuse to destroy something they don't like.  And the encyclopedia of Wikipedia is affected by the presence of this article, and others like it, since it isn't complete without it.  Unlike paper encyclopedias Wikipedia does not have any limits on space, and therefore no reason not to fill it up with things like this.  A writer whose other works have been established as notable, produced a collection of short stories.  This isn't just some random work by an unknown person.   D r e a m Focus  11:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, an inclusion guideline would not reach it's guideline status if it didn't have the support of a wide range of editors and describe common outcomes at AfD. And just because the are guidelines doesn't mean that they should always be ignored. Your attempts to belittle the guidelines does more harm to Wikipedia than the inclusion of articles that fail to pass the guidelines. Wikipedia is not about everything as that would lead it to be an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability guidelines helps us discriminate between topics that are worth including in an encyclopedia and those that do not. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - The work can be listed at the author's article, and if we have somehow missed sources then the article can be reestablished on stronger ground. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib)
 * Redirect to Mitsuba Takanashi. Unnotable series that fails WP:BK and WP:N. No coverage in reliable sources. As some people think "merge" means copy/pasting the plot and infobox, there is nothing to merge. Work is already correctly listed on Takanashi's page. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the mention that it's a collection of short stories + name of those short stories can be salvaged. Unless we think that it's trivial information. --KrebMarkt 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is, beyond maybe a note that it is unrelated short stories versus a one volume series. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (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.