Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō

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 no consensus. The sense of the debate is that, having shipped in such a volume, this manga ought to be notable and verifiable, although no one is quite sure how important it is and the article as written has not been verified with reliable secondary sources. It may pass the third prong of WP:BK, although that refers specifically to a "notable motion picture", which brings us back to the original question. This is the first time this article has been nominated for deletion; it's appropriate to close out the debate as no consensus for now, while noting that in any subsequent debate these issues, if not addressed, are grounds for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō

[edit]
Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

prodded because the series failed WP:BK and will likely continue to do so. ip 159.182.1.4 removed prod with the reason "21 manga volumes AND a movie seems pretty notable." However, while it would "seem" to be, there is no indication that it passes any of the tests for WP:BK. The sequal manga series has charted on the top of weekly listings in Japan, but only for the first week. There is no commentary on the original, the movie or the sequal series from reliable sources and unlikely to be any. Furthermore it is unlikely the manga will be translated, or its sequal. 陣内Jinnai 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its length does not make it notable, and we cannot operate on the idea that because we believe it should have coverage that it does. The lack of actually verified significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and the lack of reviews or any other coverage of its adaptation makes it fail WP:BK and WP:N. Therefore, it should not have an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a good example of why I think WP:BK just doesn't work for manga, and an example of where the instruction in WP:N to use common sense should be followed. No matter how notable a manga actually is, if it has only been published in Japan, and especially if it is more than a couple years old, no one on the English language Wikipedia can ever find sources for it. According to Square-Enix's web site, this manga has sold over 15 million volumes [1], and the fact that they mention it there suggests that it is one of the most successful manga series they have ever published. I also want to mention that if WP:BK corresponded to WP:MUSIC, this would pass the notability guidelines easily (based on sales numbers), and it would also semi-pass WP:NF as a major work by a notable creator (Chiaki Kawamata). While WP:BK doesn't allow for similar considerations, I think that is based on an assumption that notable works will have readily accessable reviews, which just doesn't hold for Japanese works, and manga in particular. Calathan (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally never had a problem finding coverage for notable series, that are truly notable. I think Music's sales criteria was and remains a horrible criteria, resulting in a hideous number of stubs that will never be anything other than a stub and occasionally copyrighted lyrics and a plot summary of a music video. No reviews because there were none. Further, WP:BK works just fine for manga, as far as I can see. Its being published in Japan doesn't somehow negate that. Other foreign language works that are notable have been sourced by English editors. Translators may not give the best results, but they generally give good enough for the purposes of seeing what something says. With the Square Enix link, notice that even though this series is twice as long as FMA, it sold less than half as many copies, which really doesn't show it to be that successful among manga series as a whole, even if it was one of their high sellers (Square Enix is also not one of the most prolific of manga publishers).-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fullmetal Alchimist is longer than this manga (23 volumes and still running, vs. 21 volumes). Anyway, I know you are opposed to using sales figures as a notability guideline, and that you were the main person who argued against it being added to WP:BK, but I personally disagree with you. Some of the arguements you presented seemed really unconvincing (e.g. that the creator could be the one buying all the copies), and I don't see how something that sold 15 million volumes could be considered non-notable. Furthermore, I can't understand why you don't think there is a problem with how manga articles are handled right now. Currently, manga is almost never considered notable if it is just published in Japan, but is almost always considered notable if it has been published in the last few year in the U.S., France, or another country with reliable sources that review a large percentage of the manga published in that country. The presence of reviews really has nothing to do with how popular, successful, or well known a manga is, but just whether it happened to be picked up for release in certain countries. Calathan (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was thinking of FMA's epsiode cound. Anyway, the phenomenon of author's and/or publisher's inflating best seller numbers is well documented, but that's not a discussion for this page. I do not see manga as being special or different from any other foreign language work for establishing notability here. Its license status is irrelevant (and there have been dozens of licensed series deleted as unnotable over the last year, because they again lacked the coverage). Conversely there are several manga series which have never been released outside of Japan which are notable and have the actual significant coverage to show it. The coverage doesn't have to be only reviews, but does need to be significant and from reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. Scanlation is stall at v5c18 and +1200 days old. Least non tag non maintenance edit July 12, 2008. Currently fails WP:BK. For now i'm leaning for Delete. I should not that even if the article is kept most of the content could trimmed or removed due to verifiability issue ending up with an empty shell. --KrebMarkt 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If 15 million people bought it, its notable. Use common sense. A major long established company is not going to exaggerate its sales figures. Does anyone here not believe it sold 15 million copies? Do you think its just a few dozen copies, and the rest are just hype? And what difference does it make if they have another series that sold twice as many copies? That doesn't change the point that a very large number of people have bought this series, making it quite notable. Dream Focus 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's less than 750,000 per copy, which is not that impressive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now wait a minute. It's one thing to say that you don't think sales figures are an indication of notability, but I don't possibly see how you can say that 750,000 copies per volume isn't an impressive number. That is a lot more copies than the vast majority of manga sell. Calathan (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's more people than live in my entire province. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not paper and can support niche notability. - BalthCat (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the source above actually said "...Dragon Quest Retsuden Roto No Monsho (15+ million shipped)"... not "750,000 copies per volume". So I'd be interested in where that lessor number came from... though 3/4 million is still impressive. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21 volume series...basic division. Of course, it also says shipped, not sold, but that's another issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been working pretty closely with the Dragon Quest articles along with Jinnai and I have to say it'd just be simpler and more useful to Wikipedia to just move the relevent info (which I believe has already happened) to the main Dragon Quest articles.?EVAUNIT神の人間の殺害者 00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My sense is that if something it is notable enough to somone for to open their wallets and hand over money... 15 million times, we have a reasonable presumption of notability that would then indicate a "keep and further improve", rather than delete. Surmountable obstacles are to be adressed... and not deleted because of the level of difficulty posed for English-only Wikipedians. Futher assistance might be requested Japanese-reading Wikipedians. Surely some have contributed to the article in the past and could come forward to address these issues. Some might even translate these Japanese language articles for us non-Japanese-reading Wikipedians and share how much Japanese coverage there is for this Japanese manga product. Though other Wikipedia have less stringent standards toward assessing what is notability for their readership, it would be prudent to also translate THIS article from the Japanese Wikipedia to find out which sources it uses. I'd hate to have something tossed simply because it was notable only in some place other than the United States. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Google News Archive, one of the articles I found was the equivalent to this[1] which is an announcement that title is one of the first titles Square Enix has started distributing via PSP. Another article[2] is an interview with the artist, where he says that, "The truth is that they were planing on having another writer work on "Emblem of Roto" when suddenly the offer came to me. It seems that(The creator of Dragon Quest) Yuuji Horii had read my manga "Chocolate Panic"." Unfortunately, the Japanese Wikipedia article only mentions the various media generated by the franchise such as the artbooks and guide book for references, and I suspect those don't count. Really, this is another case where the manga is old enough that you won't find much reliable news coverage on it on the web, and have to rely on books and magazines that mostly can only be found in Japan after days of searching in used bookstores. Personally though, I think the PSP news points to the fact that this series has remained notable even a decade after it was originally published. SMimas (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This seems like a very concise overview on a popular manga series which is already brokering into other media. I don't see any outrageous claims or undue exponential plot creep, etc. It seems well-written and anyone looking for a thumbnail sketch would seem to be well served by this article. My hunch is that some serious digging for sourcing is needed and likely won't be easy. If they are in another language then use them are try to interpret them for those looking to dig deeper. Serve our readers, who are obviously interested in this, and let the list grow organically. Likewise encourage those editors who work in manga to identify and cite sources. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearing in mind that if a strict reading of the verifiability policy is applied this article could end like that one --KrebMarkt 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on the sales figures, it seems quite popular and successful. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 15 million people served, not as impressive as McDonald's billions and billions, but enough to meet notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which guideline? --KrebMarkt 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Lets end this nonsense right now, and go to the books guideline page, and discuss changes. [2] Less than a handful of people ever stated their opinions about that. If consensus is clearly that sales figures from a reliable source, equal notability, then the suggested guideline must be changed. Dream Focus 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I think the guidelines do not particularly work well for long-running series (particularly first-volumes in infoboxes), I'm not sure this is the best candidate to pick battles. Dragon Quest is notable as a franchise in and of itself and it is likely a rub-off effect being seen. It may be better if you decide on such course to show one that is also independently well known. For this series, not every volume even charted once.陣内Jinnai 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It's a bit difficult for me to fathom how a series that ran for 21 volumes has no coverage at all. I understand a great amount of work has been done on researching material for the franchise, so I presume there is no mention in Manga: The Complete Guide or any other English-language review anthology. Given the age of this series, it is unlikely that there is much web coverage. Perhaps more research needs to be done on a print level to better determine the extent of its (un)popularity. FYI, all volumes are listed on WorldCat by searching the name in Japanese script. Arsonal (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manga: The Complete Guide says it only covers officially English manga. No other English RSes review it; its even hard to find unreliable sources reviewing it.
    • I'd like to know from Arsonal who voted "keep for now" what is "now" because this title has had notability tag for almost 1 year, has existed since 2006 and no RSes have been found beyond a few incidental ones for sales ratings, one of which is an primary interested source. the video game publisher, which such sources are known to inflate sales numbers.陣内Jinnai 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Square-Enix (or Enix, before they merged) is the publisher of the manga, not just the games. Anyway, I didn't do an in-depth search for sources since I can't read Japanese, so I hope people aren't assuming I did a detailed search and just didn't find anything. I don't know if there are other sources out there or not, but if there are, I would expect that they are in Japanese. Calathan (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm going to be picky and correct Jinnai that the tag is on lack of references, not on notability. Indeed it was placed back in July 2008, and I'm going by the good faith of Rosiestep who probably thought a series with 21 published volumes should be somewhat notable. However, (s)he of course did not know the extent of its notability and therefore tagged it for lack of references. The series has probably fallen off the radar of many people because a decade has passed since it ended. This would result in the lack of coverage in present-day RS. However, contributors who have seen the article have no access to RS Japanese material published contemporary to the series. (Subjects such as this are sometimes "rediscovered" later.) In my view, it is a case of insufficient information to be able to properly discern the extent of notability, and I think we should not jump to conclusions solely on that basis. Arsonal (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1994 does not really qualify as "that old" for deference given in WP:BK. The internet was around then and moreso the sequal and movie were around then as well. There are no independant RSes for any of it that can confer notability, including sites in Japanese. Given that you cannot presume there is likely notability when this article cannot even get 1 RS commenting on just one of the 3 works.陣内Jinnai 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The article is a bit light on details, so merging it into the main DQR article may make sense. Argel1200 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is complete, and the manga has been adapted into a comic CD and an anime movie, therefore it is notable. Although one Wikipedian complained English Wikipedia's overly lenient article inclusion criteria (see User:FreeKresge/Wikipedia problems and User:FreeKresge/Notability), in fact now English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria has been more and more strict, and it can stop new Wikipedians from continuing working in English Wikipedia. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no applicable notability guideline for sales figures, and in any case there are no reliable sources for verifiability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There're some English Wikipedians who are proficient in Japanese, found of anime, tokusatsu and manga therefore they can verify the content, so don't be shy to use Japanese sources (even if there're no reliable English sources, it is still verifiable).--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. It would be good if an editor proficient in Japanese could check this out. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To which extend? Publisher website offers reliable information on the work and the fictional characters but that is still very succinct. It won't assert claims & plot facts that people like to call spoilers. Bottom line you can't develop much the article with just publisher website as reference. --KrebMarkt 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudices of recreation if reliable sources are found. Currently, the article is nothing more than plot information, which can easily be recreated. Instead, we strive to have articles that cover how the work came to being, its reception, and its influences on other works. Sales figures are not part of WP:BK because of the way that sales figures can be manipulated by publishers. But also popularity is not the same as notability. And while the total volume numbers is a good indication that reliable sources may exists, it does not, in itself, demonstrate notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long running manga series that has spun sequels, had a movie (Which likely fulfills criteria #3 of WP:BK, two artbooks, one guidebook, as well as having recently had a "Complete" edition released seems to me to be notable enough that it deserves an article. I'll check through some old Animage issues and see if there is any coverage of the movie that could be added to the article. While the current quality of the article is lacking, that doesn't mean that there is nothing useful there for someone who wants to expand and improve the article. SMimas (talk) 05:21, 18 November 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.
  1. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-09-24/japan-sony-psp-manga-distribution-service-detailed
  2. ^ http://mainichi.jp/enta/mantan/manga/news/20090926mog00m200017000c.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Quest_Retsuden:_Roto_no_Monshō&oldid=1080162705"