Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of Cards (manga)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Cards (manga)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No RS, no SIGCOV. Two reviews are from a defunct blog of dubious reliability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This series meets WP:NBOOKS by having reviews from two different sources, the Manga Life reviews are regarded as reliable by WP:ANIME/RS, and the Newtype USA review is from a reliable magazine. Jumpytoo Talk 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the same as Manga Life. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entry in WP:ANIME/RS is referring to the English website Manga Life, not the Japanese magazine. Specifically, it mentions Manga Life is good for reviews up until May 2011. This website was an offshoot of Comics Bulletin. Jumpytoo Talk 21:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it has multiple reviews in reliable sources, so it meets WP:NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but where are they all? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The further reading section has two links to Manga Life (which is a reliable source) as one review, and a reference to a Newtype USA review. While I do not have access to this source, I assume good faith that the review is significant. That's two good sources, which fulfills the at least two requirement of WP:NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the reliabiity of the sources and reviews offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a fan of this manga, but it does meet the WP:NBOOKS policy, since the source material is deemed appropriate by WP:ANIME/RS. In short, it should be kept, rather than deleted or merged. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After further investigation, I accept these reviews as RS. However, is that enough to establish notability? What is the notability standard specifically for manga/anime/manhwa, etc.? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBOOK#Coverage notes states that Though the concept of a "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga), so there is no question that NBOOKS applies here (as for whether it applies to manhwa, manhua, OEL manga, etc is not elaborated on, so I would assume it does not apply). WP:NBOOKS#Criteria states that The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Manga Life is a review, and I assume Newtype USA is one as well, thus it is the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book itself, so it meets that criteria. Regarding the notability of anime, it depends; manga that are notable often contain information about their adaptations, as is common with other book articles. Anime may be eligible for WP:NTV, WP:NWEB, or WP:NFILM depending on its method of distribution. The general notability guideline also applies. Link20XX (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Newtype is a reputable publication well known to fans of Asian pop culture. So that means it meets WP:NBOOK. Does it also meet threshold standards? According to WP:BKTS, it needs an ISBN and it needs to be catalogued in Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Media Arts Database (from the Agency for Cultural Affairs) lists the first volume as having the ISBN 4592173813 and here is its entry in the National Diet Library. This information exists for all 9 volumes, but I'm too lazy to link them all. Link20XX (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Additionally, the English translation also has an entry in the Library of Congress and an ISBN for each volume, with the first being 9781401213121. Link20XX (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2023 (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.