Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asklepios (manga)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. MBisanz talk 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asklepios (manga)

[edit]
Asklepios (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable manga series by an unnotable author. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, first volume of manga isn't even released so obviously not a sales hit, and not even notable enough for an entry at Anime News Network yet. And, before its even said, the notability of Weekly Shonen Jump does not automatically make every little manga series that runs it notable, particularly considering the sheer number that are included in each issue. Fails WP:N and fails WP:BK. Article nothing but plot and a list of chapters. As author page is already up for deletion for his own complete lack of notability, no valid merge target so deletion best option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, some series must be last in the polls. They can't all be in first place. --Gwern (contribs) 15:06 30 January 2009 (GMT)
Please stop with the bad faith accusations already. You had plenty of time to show notability for this series, but instead you engaged in personal attacks and tried to claim that it didn't matter that it wasn't notable (as is clear for anyone to see on the article talk page). The series is not notable. Its single pending volume (not released at this time) still does not meet notability. As you were already repeatedly told. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We base a manga's notability based on significant coverage by reliable third party sources. There are are few alternative criteria we can use, but being published or being sold is not among them. I am curious to know where Quasirandom found the information that the series is running last in WSJ's popularity polls. --Farix (Talk) 16:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jump has a unique trick where more popular manga appear at the front of the magazine, and less popular ones at the back. While they may move a book forward to promote it or leave an older book that is still popular but past the media focus to the back, the chapter order - particularly for new titles - is a rough guide to popularity. Unsuccessful new titles end up at the very back by around issue six. There are titles like Gintama that managed to recover from that and be successful, but Asklepios has been dead last for about ten issues, and seems unlikely to survive the next round of new serializations. I check the Jump flash site weekly; the table of contents there matches the one in the magazine for that week. Doceirias (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but based on what you've said, its not very reliable. Now the next question is, how does Shōnen Jump determine a popular manga from an unpopular manga? Are these results compiled from a weekly feedback survey or something similar to Nielsen? --Farix (Talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty reliable, but more contributing evidence than undeniable fact. You have to watch the chapters for a while before you can really predict the trends. The results are compiled from the weekly feedback survey; postage required, but there are prizes to encourage responses. It used to be unpopular series were killed within ten issues; but with tankobon sales rising, they now tend to wait and see what the tankobon orders are before canceling a title. There's a number of books - like the second to last title, To Love - that aren't as popular with the Jump readers, but sustain themselves through healthy tankobon sales. The formula's become a little more complex. But Asklepios has neither the cult following nor the otaku targeted fanservice that generally supposed those mid-level titles. Doceirias (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to be off-topic, the mechanics of the weekly feedback survey (and how it affects editorial decisions) are depicted in Bakuman, another current WSJ series. Not reliable enough to be cited, given it's a work of fiction, but since the intent is to provide inside into the world of manga writing and editing, useful as an overview (and is consistent with other descriptions I've seen). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may fall into that gray area of things that are so well known and obvious that no reliable sources have bothered to write about them. They get discussed on blogs and forums all the time, but I've never seen anything more authoritative. Anyone reading Jump for long (and living in Japan) just works it out and starts sending in cards to support titles they like. I used to have a site bookmarked that claimed 90% of the readship did not respond, and 90% was just voting for One Piece and Naruto, so series live or die by the polls. There are a few manga, like Buso Renkin and Taizo Motse King Saga, that contain extensive author's notes discussing the impact of the polls on their work. Doceirias (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't the place for failing serialization like this one and being published argument is fail as it only concerns Japan. Unless it receive third-party coverage as a notable publication failure in the future, this article should not be on wikipedia.--KrebMarkt 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails notability WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it was the least popular manga in their magazine, its still popular enough to be in their magazine, and anything in such an influential and high selling magazine is notable. The policies are a guideline, not an official set of law. Remember that. Use common sense, and if something could make the wikipedia better, include it. And Kangarugh22, Collectonian already stated on her website that she is a deletionist, and when asked how she choose what to delete, she stated on her user page, that it depended on how many active editors were around to protest. There is no possible reason to go around deleting what could be a useful article. Dream Focus (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're back to lying and putting words in my mouth. Thanks. And, no, policies are policies, guidelines are guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus Notability can't by inherited. The magazine is notable but each manga serialized has to prove its own notability. End of the story.
The only reliable way to deal with deletion is providing information & RS references. Naming someone deletionist won't avoid Afd.--KrebMarkt 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someones userbox is most certainly not a relevant factor in any AFD, and I'm getting tired of Dream Focus using AFD's to launch lame attacks on Collectonian because he didn't (and is yet to) get his own way in an AFD. I've yet to see a vote or comment from Dream Focus that isn't simply "trolling" or attempting unlikely keeps due to their own misguided sense of "justice" in the face of experienced editors who actually know what they are talking about Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. I was active in the AFD months ago, I just got distracted. I'm not here to spite anyone. The policies are not laws, they are suggestions/guidelines. It clearly states that. It says to use common sense, and if anything can make the wikipedia better, than do so. And I was answering someone's question, as to why she was deleting so many things. It not personal, she just having the philosophy that certain things should be deleted. Dream Focus (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are policies, they are not merely suggestions that can be ignored when they become inconvenient. The same goes for guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like you all to go to the pages for Bokke-san, Kuroko no Basket and Meister (manga) which have next to no information provided. THOSE ones should be deleted way before Asklepios which has had 17 chapters compared to the 5, 6, and 7 chapters the new series have. At least the Asklepios page has something on it! However, I see no vicious attempts to delete those articles quite like I see here. Kangarugh22 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no specific order in which articles must be sent to AFD. And such arguments is just WP:WAX. Besides, Kuroko no Basket and Meister are already at AFD, and were nominated long before this article. As for Bokke-san, it's been tagged for merger into the author's article. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are deleted if there aren't a lot of active editors around to protest. Dream Focus (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asklepios_(manga)&oldid=1069495317"