Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonari no Kashiwagi-san


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tonari no Kashiwagi-san

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Also, note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources (i.e. illegal scanlations) overwhelm any reliable sources which at the same time lack any kind of significant coverage required by WP:GNG. At best, it will become automatically notable in the future should it get an anime adaptation. For now it was simply created WP:TOOSOON and should be deleted or usefyed until a more suitable time.
 * Note: I suggest that the closing admin thoroughly read the arguments below before making a decision, the WikiProject sees this happen less and less for debates of this kind. KirtZJ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I was going to redirect or merge the content over to Manga Time Kirara Forward but the latter article has no references, I would recommend that Manga Time Kirara Forward be placed up for deletion as well per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:N issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like it did get a motion comic with full voice acting, so there's that. I'm finding some sourcing, but I'll have to get someone fluent in Japanese (I just use Google Translate) to really check. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that the motion comic would keep it on that basis alone, just saying that it gives off the hope that there would be more sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON not a policy based argument I know but this gives more time for sources to be found for a possible re-creation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - Firstly, I wish to state that "[...] note that since series hasn't been made available in English, fan-sources overwhelm any reliable sources" is a false statement as just because an article has no coverage in English does not mean it has no coverage in Japanese - WP:NONENG applies. That being said though, there doesn't seem to be much coverage in Japan either - there is this, this and this, though whether they count anything towards notability I cannot say, as I'm not able to read in any language other than English. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also found When looking for reliable sources I find that Wikipedia Japan helps and by looking at their entry on the manga it looks like it is only primary sources for external links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, the Japanese Wikipedia (along with 99.9% of other Wikipedias) has much looser requirements and a higher degree of tolerance with lack of sourcing when compared to the English version. It's not uncommon for Japan-exclusive products, such as video games (a topic I'm used to editing) have no corresponding article whatsoever or it being in much poorer condition that its English-language counterpart. Though in this case I completely agree with you as there is a noticeable lack of RS, with the (possible) exception of the three I pointed out above. Thanks, Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  12:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You shouldnt really take what I said out of context. Searching Google throws up a host of illegal scanlations—which is what I meant and doesnt give any weight to keeping this page. At any rate, I dont see anything notable about this page for an English article even if it exists on other language Wikipedia(s) which are more lax when it comes to policy. —KirtZ Message 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevant point is that the preponderance of scanlation sites also doesn't give any weight against keeping the page, since the same is true for series that do unquestionably pass GNG. It may simply show that you're bad at Googling. --erachima talk 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Semantics. Apologies if I wasnt clear. All I did was do a quick google search and found no uniqueness for notability. You feel free to do a more in-depth search. Keeping the article based solely on the reason that it has published volumes (as shown by some of 's Japanese sources) is hardly compelling though. —KirtZ Message 21:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of clarification though I'll say that what I thought you meant was "since this manga is not available in English, there won't be coverage by reliable sources and thus would be overwhelmed by fan sources". Thats more of a differing interpretation than taking things out of context. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are two 100% reliable Jspanese sources in the References section. The series is notable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats not a good argument. Just because (questionably) reliable sources exist on the page does not mean that their content makes the series notable. —KirtZ Message 02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a good point even if the sources are reliable it does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable since the coverage could be trivial (ie a regurgitation of a press release etc). Can anyone who knows Japanese look at these sources and weigh in on whether or not the coverage is significant enough?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BKCRIT. No independent mentions, The MyNavi.jp is just a news report that it was adapted into a motion comic, which could have been a press release. Article really needed to be developed at WP:AFC first. The mantan web one is a dead link. One of the books did reach number 33 on Oricon, but that counts as a passing mention for notability purposes. Rest are publisher-based primary sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Prima facie, this is at least a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published and therefore ought not to be deleted whilst the article on that magazine exists (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The magazine article itself has WP:N issues and will probably be nominated for deletion as Knowledgekid87 suggested above. —KirtZ Message 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that "probably" is good enough. I think that if you want this deleted now, you should include the magazine in this nomination. James500 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats your opinion. One thing at a time. The WikiProject already has enough problems with these ridiculous creations as it is. —KirtZ Message 21:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This "ridiculous creation" could have been dealt with in a matter of seconds by means of a blank and redirect, if that is necessary. I can't see how salami tactics can be compatible with WP:R. James500 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's AfD because its not a WP:R matter. The point is this page shouldn't exist. —KirtZ Message 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note to the closer, User:James500 retracted some comments but completely removed them instead of using strikethrough, which is why User:KirtZJ now seems to be replying to himself above. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't this have been dealt with by removing the entire thread? James500 (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally, comments aren't removed from AFD discussions, but are crossed out when retracted. I guess in theory both you and KirtZJ could have decided to entirely remove those comments, but you aren't supposed to remove someone else's comments, so you or I couldn't remove his comments above. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Due to Crunchyroll's license, reviews will start to come in. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of what said at this discussion, waiting around for reviews does seem like wishful thinking in addition to not being automatically notable since it was "licensed". I wouldnt exactly call CR a licensee either since the community has never really made this clear.  —KirtZ Message 01:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Until there are reviews or other significant coverage, this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria described at WP:NOTE or WP:NBOOK. Just because it is being published by an English language website does not automatically mean that it will meet the criteria. Assuming that reviews are to come is also a case of WP:CRYSTAL as there is a possibility that the manga won't be reviewed. For example, the Arpeggio of Blue Steel manga did not receive any reviews until after Seven Seas Entertainment licensed it and released the first volume this past month dispiriting all current chapters being online publication by Crunchyroll since January of this year. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (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.