Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash (manga)


 * 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. Or redirect. – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trash (manga)

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

Fails WP:N, and overrall is short and lacks the amount of information needed for even a C-class article. The only review I have been able to find is this, and it's unclear whether or not it should be considered a reputable site for reviews. Even still, I've searched high and low for other reviews and have come up with nothing. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a lack of information to reach a certain project rating doesn't have any relevace here. I'm surprised this has been nominated, being released in English by Tokyopop means there must be some sourcing, reviews or not. I actually have a source right next to me, and its a review in a major manga reference book. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference added, although it's a really short review :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Licensed and released in english, and with at least one review in a fairly major publication suggests that there is some notability. Enough to keep the article? I'm not convinced, but there is a good chance of other sources existing Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some references out there for it, though only for release dates and that one review. I see you've added reception from that book (thanks for that, by the way), but does it say anything else? Currently, this article should probably be at stub class (I listed it as start in April '08). Relevancy to class is debatable to some, but the only reason I brought it up was that it can't reach any higher. If that book can help, then maybe this article could be improved (also depending on whether or not that other review counts). This isn't an article I particularly want deleted, either; it's not well known and has almost no coverage, which is why it could. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it doesn't meet start but you can simply drop it to stub and add a stub template. At the end of the day the class of the article isn't going to affect it's deletion. The "review" really isn't much bigger then your reply, it simply gives a very quick idea to it's plot and that quote is pretty much the only revewing text (there is a comparison to another work by the same writer, but nothing of consequence). Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped it and added the manga-stub banner. I know current class has no affect on deletion (one of the points of going through with an AfD is to see whether the article can be improved and if more information exists, no?). Though, how much the article can be improved relates to class, which is why I mentioned it. That's too bad that it doesn't have anything more :/. Unfortunately, this seemed to be the start of a series that never was carried on. The story isn't complete and it left many things unanswered. Chances of it being carried on seem slim. So, that combined with the fact that it isn't well-known makes it hard to find much coverage, in terms of out-of-universe information and reviews. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While it was translated into English, this by itself doesn't establish notability. And since this single volume manga has received very minor coverage since its release in July 2006, I seriously doubt that any extensive coverage is coming in the future. It could possibly be redirected to the author's article Sanami Matoh, which itself is in need of a serious cleanup and referencing. --Farix (Talk) 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a published work. If I was reading the manga creator's Wikipedia page and saw that listed in their works, I'd like to know that I could find out information on it in one click.  Quistisffviii (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what ? There are thousands books published every years and not every single book deserve an article on Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is subject to the eye of the beholder. You may not think it is notable, but a bunch of other people might, including someone who wants to learn about it.  Quistisffviii (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is different on Wikipedia. There is a criteria; Notability (books). The one-shot doesn't fit the criteria at all. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the notability guidelines so that we can apply an objective test to determine if the subject is notable instead of relying on editors' subjective opinions. Without the guidelines, notability arguements would be a variation of either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, every book deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It was mentioned in an independent book about manga. "# ^ Thompson, John. Manga: The Complete Guide. Del Ray. p. 375."  It got a review, although not a good one.    D r e a m Focus  16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Manga: The Complete Guide attempts to cover every single manga licensed in English as of when it went to press. As such, while its entry is a reliable source for the purposes of series reception and verifying publication details, it conveys no more notability than the manga's being included in a book catalog. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Quistisffviii. It is a published book, which makes it notable. Havok (T/C/e/c) 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because a book is published does not mean that it is notable nor should be included in an encyclopedia. Such a low bar will mean that an article would either be a permanent stub or a violation of WP:NOT. This is why inclusion guidelines, such as WP:BK, are around. --Farix (Talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sanami Matoh only two reviews, neither significant, is not enough to meet WP:BK and no other coverage found anywhere. Probably search term. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would actually challenge the teenreads.com as a reliable source for reviews because the reviews are user submitted and the reviewer, Jen Webb, isn't listed on teenreads.com's staff page. I'll also like to not that the last three "keep" !votes are by ARS members who have not done a single edit to the article and are once again acting as an illusionist voting block instead of their stated mission of improving articles at AFD. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed then, that it is not a reliable review, meaning there is now only one. Is Matoh even notable herself? If not, would say delete all together. Otherwise, redirect should still be fine. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless another reference turns up that at least provides as much coverage as a small review. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sanami Matoh The manga only has one review from a reliable source, and that is a source that is attempting to be comprehensive in covering all manga released in English. I don't think that review alone is enough to establish notability, as the book attempts to cover even very obscure titles as long as they have been released in English.  Sanami Matoh is notable as the creator of a notable series (the manga Fake). Calathan (talk) 04:16, 8 April 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.