Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria 100 Shiki


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yuria 100 Shiki

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no reviews, unlicensed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Google News Archive search for the Japanese title. _dk (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece by a published author. _dk (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one maybe reliable review. The Google hits are not clear if they are RS or not, and almost all seem to just be from two sites. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing you have to be aware of about Google News searches is that it also includes some blogs along with normal news cites. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's break down the Google News search results: there are 4 different sites (the ones on page two are off-topic), two of them (cinematopics.com and saddoboxing.com) are just mirroring off Amazon.co.jp. Of the remaining two, this is a PVC figure review under the hobby section from a news site of some renown, and the other one also reviews the Yuria figure, though it is by ASCII and it provides some introduction to the manga (the tone of the article isn't what you'd expect from a news article though) _dk (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep No reason to delete it, and when I Google the name in quotation marks, it has "45,800" results. By the rule of WP:common sense, I say Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to delete? There were two very good reasons given in the nomination. Once more, the number of google hits are irrelevant. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Yuria 100 Shiki 8-ongoing series by Shigemitsu Harada & Nobuto Hagio. "Shigemitsu Harada" "Yuria 100 Shiki" => 435 Hits | "Nobuto Hagio" "Yuria 100 Shiki" 464 Hits on google. Most of them are COPYVIO. Not licensed in UK/US, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. I will wait for assessment of the reviews before my vote. KrebMarkt 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the lack of English language sources is a major problem, this has not stopped other similar articles from existing. I update chapter names, volumes and ISBN as information becomes available. I'm willing to add more detailed discriptions to the characters, but can't currently give external site references (other than perhaps fan sites), hence they would most likely be labeled as WP:OR. Lack of licencing outside of Japan is not an issiue to prevent it from being documented. Kodomo no Jikan, although licenced outside of the US, will never be released outside of Japan or officially translated into English, yet this article is plentily filled, mostly from information provided by readers who read translated/scanlated versions. Only real problems I see is obtaining images that do not violate WP:COPY. Jack Masamune (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Kodomo no Jikan is notable. its controversy alone made it notable. --KrebMarkt 11:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kodomo no Jikan received lots of coverage by multiple reliable sources, which is the standard by which Wikipedia determines notability. Yuria 100 Shiki, however, hasn't received that type of coverage. And unless someone finds more reviews by reliable sources, I'm going to have to support delete for this one. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Other stuff existing is not a reason to keep (either alternate articles meet criteria, or simply haven't been gotten to yet) Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Access to illegal scanlation made this manga tangible, palatable for some public but sorry that not notability. KrebMarkt 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I honestly fail to see how a published, eight volume, ongoing series isn't notable in the truest sense of the term. Of course it's hard to find published reviews for it, it's a freakin' foreign series. This shit is absolutely pathetic. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The line must be draw somewhere and that somewhere is WP:BK. I think we can't have an article for every single manga series published in the world as we can't have an article for every single book published in the world. End of the story. KrebMarkt 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We aren't wp:bk. 2) Why exactly can't we have an article for every manga and every book?  Are we running out of space...? 76.116.247.15 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP:Manga, the project that has the long practice to assert notability of manga using WP:BK. Feel free to check our archives to learn since when it started. WP isn't also a catalog and even less the back-up website for stuff like manga-update. KrebMarkt 07:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:BK is a notability guideline and slightly more lenient then WP:N. 2) We want to be able to write more then just a plot summary and character outline, and as KrebMarkt pointed out, we aren't a directory of everything that that exists or has existed. --Farix (Talk) 12:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize the point behind deleting random manga series that were canceled after a handful of chapters that no one will ever speak of again, but this series has been running for three years, is still going and probably has no immediately encroaching end point. There's all that crap about "length/popularity doesn't matter", sure, but there really should be some discretion used here in assuming that it most likely has been talked about by Japanese reviewers, magazines and the like. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea that the point we just need someone who know Japanese enough to find 2 RS review and i call a Safe. I gave already my very best shot to find licensor in Europe so don't hate me. As an assessor of anime/manga article request department, i had to refuse a 45 vols series that didn't have ANN and scanlation so the notability through number of volume has its limit too. --KrebMarkt 11:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A search for the Japanese title (ユリア100式) yields ~300,000 results, and looking past all the book/toy store links there seems to be metric ton of sites that mention it. I can't read them but there's bound to be a cornocopia of reviews and stuff here. An article doesn't need reliable sources to be kept, just sufficient likeliness that they exist, which is decent here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, an article needs reliable sources if it is to remain on Wikipedia. Just like when any statement is challenged, a reliable source must be presented in order for the statement to remain. (see WP:BURDEN) The number of Ghits is also irrelevant. What is relevant is if they turn up any reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a 9/10 chance those hits do have reliable sources when you consider all the circumstances though. The issue here is that we can't read them and thus can't prove that they exist, not that they don't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, yo. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well since we're quoting Wikipolicy, I could quote WP:NOTCLEANUP in saying that an article doesn't necceserely need to be well written/well referenced at this time, but can certainly be improved upon. What this article really needs is someone who can actually search in Japanese and add references to improve verification. I will not argue that in its current state the article is lacking references, but this can be certainly improved upon. Google hits are indeed not necceserely a sign for notability, however one should not limit notability to only English language world notability. Wikipedia is a global project, but struggles with non-english addition of content for these very reasons: the language barrier when adding references or trying to build the argument of notability.Jack Masamune (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for someone willing to look for RS Japanese references in WP:japan and guess what no good answer from there. I agree with WP:NOTCLEANUP but it can't be the excuse to keep articles that sole non-Japanese elements of notability are scanlations, forums, blog & websites related to scanlation. --KrebMarkt 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you all talk like nothing in Japanese was found....? I'm tearing up here. _dk (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That not the point. Most of the references hunters like me are limited some languages. At the present we can mostly do the research for French, English, German, Spanish & Italian. Blind spot is obviously Japanese so we are at deciding with what information we have. And YES i will very happy to have someone good enough in Japanese to have full a coverage before deciding an Afd but it isn't the case and i asked for assistance in the WP:Japan parent project but not to avail (That piss me off a lot). KrebMarkt 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying I have found some Japanese sources and put them right at the top of this post....Do you mean that you're having trouble determining the appropriateness of those sources? _dk (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Won't go into a discusssion about scanlation here, but there have been many examples where an anime or manga gains notability in English language realm through the process of fanbased translation, eventually resulting in it being officially translated at least in some form. Koi Kaze for example does not have an english manga, but does have an english anime. If i recall correctly, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was introduced and made popular in English language realm through fanlations and fansubbing. Staying with the discussion, it's very sad that no Japanese language speaker can be found to help. I keep with my opinion that the article should be kept however.Jack Masamune (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTPAPER, which is a policy &mdash; something WP:BK and WP:N are not. --Pixelface (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT I don't want WP:Manga ending into a catalog of every thing that have been released in the manga format. KrebMarkt 20:32, 13 February 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.