Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capricorn (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 Keep, without prejudice to any editorial proposal to merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorn (manga)[edit]

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

WP:N Lemmey talk 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep seems to be an actual manga [1], [2]; we have pages for most of those. Nomination should be more verbose. JJL (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As nominated there is more sourced content on this page than the nominated one. --Lemmey talk 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it meets WP:N, per the above and a page at the New York Times ([3] -- taken from All Movie Guide however).
  • Keep per all comments above, the above sources seem to convey notability.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Really, a nomination needs a little bit more than alphabet soup to be viable. JuJube (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, the article itself doesn't have any sources so it actually fails WP:N. I'll add some now.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:N now that a reliable source is added to the article.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, adding a self-publisher personal website at Angelfire does not mean a reliable source has been added at all (and that has bene removed). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Johji Manabe. It is listed at ANN[4][5] and the anime OVA is licensed. However, very little else is said about beyond a plot summary. Little to no coverage in any actual reliable sources beyond directory listings (like the NY Times link above), despite it being licensed. Fails the book notability guidelines on all counts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, the book notability guidelines don't apply to manga. And I quote, "this guideline does not presently provide notability criteria (though it may be instructive by analogy) for the following types of publications: comic books; magazines; reference works", etc, etc, etc. So, "though 'book' may be widely defined", it seems those guidelines don't hold comic books to the same standards as novels.--Nohansen (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps two more external links will help in establishing notability: EX and Anime Jump.--Nohansen (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge due to low level of apparent notability and lack of references. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Nominator did not provide a rational as to why this article should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although not documented as such, it has been the concensus in the past of WikiProject Anime and Manga that, given the status of OVAs in Japan, an anime adaptation is equivalent to a theatrical or television release for the purposes of WP:BK C5. Between that and the NYT notice provided above, this two convince me this is indeed a notable manga per our guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (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/Capricorn_(manga)&oldid=1140188563"