Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaba Kawa

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. John254 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba Kawa[edit]

Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. No extensive coverage in any reliable sources. What is there now is all that it can ever be. Even JA wiki has no article on this short, one-shot title. As a note, I am the one who created this article, and I prodded it. Prod was removed with note of "rm prod. I could careless what ja does or doesn't do. it's being published in english, it's covered in ann - good enough for me." Obviously, I disagree as the reason given does not address the lack of meeting the guidelines about books and manga titles. A single non Japanese publisher does not meet the additional notability option for manga titles. Being listed in ANN is meaningless with regards to notability. An ANN listing is no different than an IMDB listing, its a directory of almost every manga and anime title every released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this be the long lost cousin of Baba Wawa?? Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things don't seem quite as clearcut as you suggest, but we're way out on the fringe of policy where it's barely possible to support a weak "keep" or "delete". Deleting it on the basis of "what there is now is all that it can ever be" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, though, and significant since it hasn't yet seen individual American release yet and won't till the end of the year. As for sources, a bit of legwork in Google shows that while it doesn't have any mainstream reliable coverage (few mangas do), there are a lot of sources (such as about.com) that have covered it to some extent and might or might not be considered reliable. I'm not going to pursue it by arguing for a keep here, though, because this manga really doesn't warrant it - even if the notability rules were more suited to manga, it'd still be pretty non-notable. Gelmax (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point on Crystal, but it has completed serialization in Shojo Beat with little coverage at all. The about.com notes all seem to just note its appearance in the manga, and are little more than press release. Most licensed manga do have coverage in reliable sources. Even its ANN entry is barebones, despite its being licensed. I work extensively on manga/anime projects, so I debated long and hard before nominating this one for deletion, but I just can't see it being a notable volume. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I considered disputing the prod, but couldn't quite convince myself not to. The grounds I considered doing it is that if it's licensed in English, it is very likely also licensed in multiple other languages (if only in Asia) which means it'd pass WP:MOS-AM#Notability. OTOH, without a working knowledge of any other Asian languages, though, it's pretty hard to come up with evidence of this. On the third tentacle, once the volume is published, it's more likely to get noticed and reviewed, since reviewers rarely notice series from serialization in Shojo Beat. But then again, I've seen hardly any mention of this in forums where Shojo Beat is avidly discussed. So ... um. We're on the thin edge of the notability wedge here, and I can't tell which side the slice goes. Yet. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on technical grounds, since internationally published books have generally been accepted as meeting notability requirements, especially when they are by authors with other notable works. That said, if the author has a number of borderline notable manga, a List of manga by Rie Takada (or similarly titled page) might allow a better encyclopedic presentation than a number of separate eternally lousy pages. --erachima talk 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the only real argument for deletion is borderline notability and even the nom is wringing her hands over it (admit it... you're still not sure ;) ), an invocation of WP:PAPER may be appropriate: there is no limit to the number of subjects we can cover, so if a subject is possibly notable, why not just cover it? This may also be a rather obtuse example of WP:POTENTIAL, as the manga is being published in English later this year, which means there could be some reliable sources with new information spring up. —Dino guy 1000 20:47, 29 August 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.