Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendz
- 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Legendz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No claim of encyclopedic notability is presented. See WP:PRODUCT. No reliable sources are cited. The two that have been recently added appear to be press releases in a publication closely associated with the anime genre and industry. See WP:RS and WP:V. This article appears to rely heavily on original research which is not admissible on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. A Google search failed to yield any RS sources on the first ten pages of hits. PROD was removed without comment. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - While this page has many flaws, I expect that addressing them in quick order be fair and that posting it up for AFD while it is being reorganized and altered is borderline bad-faith. You have a fair media franchise with international releases with manga and anime and you base your issue of N on a Google search in another language - that's exercising a limited amount of care if you ask me. Anyways... enough wasting time - this article needs a great deal of restructuring and clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Chris. No indication was made that any effort was underway at a major reorganization. At least one of the maintenance tags has been up for years. The PROD was removed without comment. A simple "we are working on fixing it up" would have worked. Also there are tags for articles undergoing major work. As for sources it is well established that the burden for sourcing lies with those editors creating articles and adding material to them. Reviewing editors are not expected to search for sources in languages they cannot read. I made a good faith search plowing through the first ten pages of hits on Google. If I failed your apparent expectations due to my inability to read Mandarin, I apologize, though I think I met the standards of BEFORE. The bottom line though is that this article has been around since the middle of the last decade and though hundreds of edits are recorded, not one editor could be bothered to add a source until 24 hours ago. Under the circumstances I think accusing me of bad faith might perhaps be a bit of an overreach. In any event, as you have indicated that there is now an effort underway to get the article up to snuff, be assured that if a viable claim to WP:N that is backed by reliable sources is established, I will happily withdraw the AfD nom. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- This says a lot about your competence in the matter: "Reviewing editors are not expected to search for sources in languages they cannot read. ... If I failed your apparent expectations due to my inability to read Mandarin" - (emphasis mine) First, it is Japanese - as indicated on the page, but did you really care about this page to read it? I think not. Secondly, its a large media franchise with almost no English exposure - the four volumes from Viz must have lapsed on licensing or something because Viz doesn't even produce or sell them, let alone list them on their website anymore. Though its had a full and proper Italian and Spanish release and it got picked up for the Phillipines and had a Tagalog dub done - and also in Indonesia. Angelo-notability need not apply, but the work as a whole is actually made by some big names and a page covering it need not be extreme, but at least know what you are talking about when you AFD something that gets blasted on the A&M main page - please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Chris. No indication was made that any effort was underway at a major reorganization. At least one of the maintenance tags has been up for years. The PROD was removed without comment. A simple "we are working on fixing it up" would have worked. Also there are tags for articles undergoing major work. As for sources it is well established that the burden for sourcing lies with those editors creating articles and adding material to them. Reviewing editors are not expected to search for sources in languages they cannot read. I made a good faith search plowing through the first ten pages of hits on Google. If I failed your apparent expectations due to my inability to read Mandarin, I apologize, though I think I met the standards of BEFORE. The bottom line though is that this article has been around since the middle of the last decade and though hundreds of edits are recorded, not one editor could be bothered to add a source until 24 hours ago. Under the circumstances I think accusing me of bad faith might perhaps be a bit of an overreach. In any event, as you have indicated that there is now an effort underway to get the article up to snuff, be assured that if a viable claim to WP:N that is backed by reliable sources is established, I will happily withdraw the AfD nom. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a large media franchise, including several video games that would be individually notable, let alone as part of a wider franchise. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, could you pull up the details of the video games? My archive of Japanese game mags is preciously small, but I did manage to gather up the dates for all the releases of the media and begin to collate everything. I still need to check a few more sources - all books - but already they page is looking much better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think WP:PRODUCT is in any way relevant to this article, and am not sure why the nominator thinks it would be. Things like TV series are clearly not the sort of "product" that WP:PRODUCT is talking about, and a multimedia franchise with various parts created by different companies clearly shouldn't be merged to the page of one company. Calathan (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's fair point. I probably should have confined it to WP:N. Clearly a significant effort is underway to get the article up to snuff. I will check back a little later when I have sometime and see where things are. But my guess is that I will withdraw the nom if RS sources have been added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even under N... the fact this franchise has a manga in a major publication, major anime production, games for the PlayStation 2 and Nintendo Game Boy Advance (2 with an absolutely over-the-top special accessory system) really merits an article. Notability is on whether or not you can write an article on a subject and WP:NRVE says that sources only need to be presumed to exist. The language barrier aside, this is far from obscure, just a decade old. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's fair point. I probably should have confined it to WP:N. Clearly a significant effort is underway to get the article up to snuff. I will check back a little later when I have sometime and see where things are. But my guess is that I will withdraw the nom if RS sources have been added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Withdrawing AfD Nom per WP:SK section 1. Massive improvements have been made to the article removing all concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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.