Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysterious Girlfriend X

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 Riichi Ueshiba. Contact me on my talk page if you want this userfied. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Girlfriend X

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. This manga does not seem to meet either WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I object to this article being deleted. This manga is still ongoing, and this article needs more work, and could be improved in several ways both now and into the future. According to OneManga.com's ranking, it is the (as of typing) 49th most popular (out of 1100+), so one could say that it is in the upper bracket of popularity. I also think that it can meet the "modern era" criteria after improvement to this article (sources etc). I'm almost sure that this already meets the ISBN minimum, though they said that that was more exclusive rater than inclusive. Basically, I don't think this article should be deleted, it should be improved. -- Hamster2.0 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some research, it doesn't appear that any reliable sources have reviewed this manga yet. Besides failing the inclusion criteria, there would be virtually nothing to write about other than a plot summary and some publishing information (keep in mind Wikipedia isn't a catalog). The original author should ask to have this page userfied and if/when it gains some third-party coverage it could be re-created with the proper real-world information expected of encyclopedic coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, there's a couple of reviews in the first two pages of that search of yours, such as this one. If those sites aren't reliable sources, why are they being kept in the search? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Gwern's tailored Google search is far from perfect so some cautions is required with results. Yea, some non-RS websites reviews get into the search results list. --KrebMarkt 14:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search for reliable third-party sources is not turning up anything besides forum posts and illegal scanlations websites. The popularity of the series on an illegal scanlations website does . The manga also doesn't appear to have been published in other languages besides Japanese and Chinese (Taiwan). Unless someone can find a couple of reviews from reliable sources from these languages, it fails the WP:BK and WP:NOTE notability/inclusion guidelines. A redirect to the author's article, Riichi Ueshiba may be appropriate. —Farix (t | c) 10:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I knew someone would eventually get around to nominating all the important, great series that deserve pages but aren't getting licensed. Guess that's this week. Since Japan appears to produce no content that counts as a source, none of these will be saved, and I guess we should be grateful the deletionists let it slide as long as they did. It's a crying fucking shame, though. Non-notable trash that ANN and AoD reviews gets kept, and great but largely unsourceable masterpieces get deleted unless they get an anime somehow. I'd try and get my own website submitted as an RS, but even if it did pass, that would only be one source. Until Japan wakes up and makes a few decent websites, not much use in editing Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be considered a reliable source? —Farix (t | c) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from Japan are used in articles and have helped articles with notability issues. The same would apply for english, but if the sources arent there then there is not much that editors can work from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any Japanese sources, please point to them. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy on my user space if no one else does. Man i'm going to keep track of a lot of series. --KrebMarkt 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Riichi Ueshiba per Farix, this series is just not notable and as pointed out has not been published in other languages. I do not know if Onemanga.com counts as a RS and as for sources from Japan if it were notable you would think it would be all over there. This article can always be recreated at a future date if notability is improved but for now I also feel a redirect is best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onemanga.com is not a reliable source because it is a scanlation aggregater and illegally distributes scans of manga series without the creator's or publisher's permission. The website has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the case, hmm well the only keep arguements I see are that this can be improved with sources, this article has been tagged over a year now though amd sources have been looked for time and time again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published for years in a notable manga magazine, so its notable. You can't realistically expect other magazines to review something their competition has, and this sort of thing doesn't get reviewed anywhere usually. So you have to think for yourself and use common sense if its notable or not, not just wait for some reviewer to tell you so. Note, we had this conversation dozens of times over the years, so don't expect me to bother responding to the usual nonsense certain people always say in response. A notable magazine says its notable enough to publish it, then its a notable manga. Dream Focus 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited though, where are all the sources that prove notability? if this manga were voted such and such popular in the magazine and it had a 3rd party reliable reference then maybe but in this case no. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources, and the "popularity" on an illegal site that is blacklisted and against policy to link too is less than insignificant. How long it has run is irrelevant as is its age. As it is, it fails WP:BK and WP:N and the only verifiable thing about it is title, author, plot, and publication dates, i.e. all stuff from the primary source. No objection to a redirect from the title to the author being created after deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There's a lot of Japanese blog posts about this series (and 2chan seems to like it a lot), but I'm not identifying anything that's obviously reliable. Not we have a very good list of reliable source Japanese review sites, which is a major hampering factor in evaluating notability with any sort of confidence. All of which is a shame, as it's the sort of quirky thing I expect an indie publisher to license Any Day Now. Much as I hate saying it, it's a userfy for now until such time as notability can be positively affirmed. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.