Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iinazuke Kyoutei

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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iinazuke Kyoutei[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable manga; coverage is lacking in either Japanese or English. An English search resulted mostly in scanlation sites or manga profiles, while the Japanese search resulted mainly in sites selling the manga or manga profiles as well. Does not appear to be licensed either. No prejudice against merging or redirecting to a list of manga published by Kadokawa, if such a list article exists. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~No JA Wikipedia article either.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC) updated 18:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is one [1] I'm not sure if this proves notability though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a page on japanese wikipedia. See the link[2], so i just make a page for english users because if it was against wikipedia's policy than it shouldn't be in japanese wikipedia also. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is going to delete the article, Than i humbly request him to explain me that why did this page was allowed to be created in japanese but not english. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia meaning that people can and do create articles that do not meet notability standards. On the Japanese wiki nobody has gotten around to placing that article up for deletion yet. We here on Wikipedia (English) have lots of biographies that are questionable so it would make sense that Wikipedia Japan is the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The manga is available on Kadokawa Shoten's official site. Check link[3].

Translate this page using Google Translate and you can see the description about Author and Publisher. -- Phoenix God (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you an example here: Samsung says that Samsung x is notable. While this could very well be the case we need other sources to say "yes Samsung x IS in fact notable for y & z reasons". Kadokawa Shoten saying things about itself doesn't prove notability, can you find some RELIABLE sources that are not just book releases? We need sources that give things like reviews for starters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, The Google Play Books also identify that "許嫁協定" is published by Kadokawa. Check link[4]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing it has though is release info, you need to find something with more substance than that. The main concern is notability here as we know the books exist and we know when they were released. In the grand scheme of things this doesn't tell us much, you have to look for things like; Did the books get good reviews? Were these books recommended? What inspired the author to make the series? Did the books win any awards? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest me some manga reviewing website that are valid on Wikipedia? -- Phoenix God (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. Since this thread is rather long I think I might hat it so it will be easier for the person closing this deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Draft - It looks like @Phoenix God: would be willing to work on the article outside of the mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look up reception for this series? Did it even chart on Oricon? I'm not seeing any coverage in ANN either. I struck my previous statement concerning JA Wikipedia. Looks like the article was so new it wasn't linked yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This series is a sex comedy, probably that's why Oricon and ANN don't have any coverage about this. Phoenix God (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. ANN's encyclopedia at least has listings of adult and pornographic anime and manga. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request a fluent user of Japanese on wikipedia to search for reference for this series, That's why please wait some more. -- Phoenix God (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this fandom post Oricon did rank the Vol (8) of this manga series last year. Please check link[5] -- Phoenix God (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN also identify that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (8) of this series 49th in August, 2016. Check link[6]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ANN shows that the Oricon has ranked the Vol (7) of this series 45th in February, 2016. Check link[7]. -- Phoenix God (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANN doesn't have an entry though for the manga, so it hasn't appeared on their notability radar. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that ANN doesn't have an entry for manga but according to the links above Oricon did ranked the manga. Does Oricon rankings are inappropriate on wikipedia? -- Phoenix God (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best-seller list meets one of the first items in WP:BKCRIT. But it needs another reviews and analysis, since it needs "two or more". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (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.