Talk:New Angel

Merge into Angel (manga)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Angel (manga).
It was pretty much done already, I'm just formally closing it. -- DarkCrow^Caw 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I believe this article is unnecessary and incomplete, since New Angel is merely the second OVA adaptation of the manga Angel by U-Jin, which in fact has a lot more relevance since it has produced two OVA series, two adult films, a video game and has two manga sequels, one of which is currently ongoing. Beside, perhaps the most important point of Angel is the controversy that arose in Japan as a result of its original publication. From this article I would only keep the intrawiki links and a reduced form of the episodes summaries, which should go in the Japanese episode list template that's in the other article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You would oppose almost every merge. it has no information that is verified. until it does, it does not merit it's own independent article. I support. stop being bias and follow the rules.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and followed the editing policy by adding some citations. I oppose this merge. --Malkinann (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think it's going to take a lil more than that? I'm not familiar with the series, but it seems the series has 5 episodes and only has 2 in full detail. no development at all and only citation seems to be reception.there was a similar discussion about this in the video games, but were much more strict about it. Plus i know we're not suppose to be using WP:OTHERSTUFF, but fullmetal alchemist covers alot of reception, and development in the main article that could arguably be able to be split, but considering it helps it gain GA status, then we should be doing the same. I'll be fixing the format of the Angel (manga). i think we can preserve this, until it's notable, but reception alone isn't going to help it be kept.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing general improvement in the article and demonstrating the notability of the article. Articles do not have to be GA-quality to stand alone. My addition of a reliably-sourced reception section has shown that the OVA meets the WP:GNGs, therefore it should not be merged. --Malkinann (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But you have to find enough information to separate the too. And i may have been easily persuaded before with the GNG talk, but i know about it much more than i use to. For one this still has a lot of original research. what else other than reception separates this from the original work?Bread Ninja (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There is sufficient information to separate the two, as the reception treats New Angel in depth, not as a mere footnote to the larger Angel series. I am not trying to trick you about the GNGs. The GNGs state that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The New Angel OVA has received significant coverage as its own entity in reliable sources (reception) that are independent of the New Angel staff. This is my reasoning as to why it meets the GNG and why it should not be merged. --Malkinann (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Significant, is a matter of question. only reception can't be the only thing. Like i said, a good example, fullmetal alchemist. Which each anime has had significant coverage. But right now, this could easily be merged. And significant coverage? it has to justify the entire article, not just one section.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Only reception is required for a fictional article to be notable, and I believe there is sufficient reception for it to remain a standalone article. An AFD on the article would be thrown out quickly as it is sufficiently notable. Your OTHERSTUFF of Fullmetal Alchemist is flawed, as Fullmetal Alchemist is a non-hentai televised series, and articles do not have to be high-quality for their subjects to be notable. --Malkinann (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

how is it flawed? comapred to Angel (manga) and Fullmetal alchemist, the only thing hats difference is quality, but both have a large ammount of media relating to one thing. And Why is reception the only thing to make it sufficiently notable? there was a big discussion not to long ago, that proved that wrong. no they don't have to be high quality, but the GNG applies to the entire article, not just one section. otherwise, it might aswell be one.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a flawed OTHERSTUFF because Fullmetal Alchemist is a non-hentai televised series. Angel and New Angel are hentai series, which do not typically have the same level of coverage as mainstream series. Having a reliably-sourced reception section does redeem the entire article, as notability has been proved and any other problems with the article are then issues with imperfectness. --Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If hentai series don't have all that much coverage, than all the more reason to. just because the genre isn't well known to the entire world doesn't mean we should give it excuse. And you say the same thing, but not really budging me on this one unelss you expand what you say. why just having a reception (a small one) justify the entire article?Bread Ninja (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comparision of Fullmetal Alchemist and New Angel is like comparing Up and 1 Night in Paris. Both notable films, but which would get the most coverage? A reception section with a few different sources justifies the article's existence because it demonstrates the article meets the general notability guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The GNG says that meeting those guidelines only presumes that it meets notability. That means consensus, such as this discussion here, and other more specific guidelines might be against having a seperate article. In this case, I would have to agree that while we need to keep the info here, it doesn't mean it should maintain its seperate article. There isn't enough distinct info to warrant it at the end of the day and that's why the GNG uses the word "presume".

To give you a good example, I can easily find enough reception to split School Rumble into School Rumble (manga), School Rumble (Season One), Schol Rumble (Season Two), School Rumble Extra Class and even Packaging for School Rumble to meet the GNG. That doesn't mean it should do that because while all of those could meet the GNG, it doesn't mean there is enough info to get a quality article from any of them separably.陣内_Jinnai 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that for reasons of size and reception, it would be better for this article, which meets the GNGs, to not be merged and instead to be treated as a daughter article of Angel (manga). I feel there is too much emphasis on New Angel in the Angel (manga) article which would be better merged here, and a summary left on the main page. --Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you are talking about the size, both articles combined are <40k which would not justify a seperate article on its own. In addition, before you break something up, there should be proper copyediting and other ways to reduce the size. Now if the main article was over 60k, I could see the justification, but that's not the case here.陣内_Jinnai 15:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review(s)

• T.H.E.M. Anime: [1]
• Mania.com: v1, v2
• ANN: Shelf Life (v1), Shelf Life (v2)