Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodomo 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. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kodomo manga[edit]

Kodomo manga/anime is not a notable term in English. The article is a stubborn attempt to needlessly conform with the shōnen and shōjo articles. In reality, Japanese comics aimed at children aren't different enough from children's literature of the rest of the world to merit a distinction. Suggest turning it into a redirect to Children's literature. Remurmur (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Its unsourced, but on what basis do you say its not a term widely used in Japan for the genre? DGG (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the Japanese Wikipedia. And of course it's used in Japan, it's their translation of "children".--Remurmur (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By your definition Shonen and Shojo are not notable terms in english (within the anime fanbase yes but not in the wider language), you certainly won't find then in an english dictionary. The question is if they are notable enough within the context of having their own article - thats a completely different thing. What about Seinen or Josei? Not notable words in the english language, but important in the context of anime and manga articles. As is common, my suggestion is to improve the article rather then delete it Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By my basis "kodomo" isn't notable in the English fanbase either.--Remurmur (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as the term is notable in Japan (though more for "kodomomuke anime" instead), and there are at least 19 different interwiki links to articles in other languages. While most of them are stubs, this lends itself to indicating the term is notable and worthy of an article. Also, you may apparently didn't notice the request that more material be translated from the Japanese article. There is no deadline for Wikipedia articles, and given how much material is in the Japanese article, I'd say that's a good indication that this article needs more time to be translated. I could see it being renamed (based on the Japanese article),but not deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are missing the point. The Japanese article is literally on "children's comics". The English article is on "children's comics in Japan". There is a major difference is this specificity, and the article shows absolutely no reason to be split off from a more general article such as Children's literature (since we don't have a children's comics article).--Remurmur (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the Japanese article is about children's anime. And no, we aren't missing the point. The subject is notable in Japan, and therefore notable here, too. Notability does not disappear just because the language of the encyclopedia changes. As Farix indicated, the scope of the ENglish Wikipedia goes beyond topics covered in only English. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erk, yeah, I knew that but forgot. My point still stands though. The English article is not addressing the same subject matter as the Japanese one. Just like how the Japanese articles on manga and anime are actually on the subjects of comics and animation. Your point is that the notability does not change with the language. This is true, but you're still supposed to translate the subject matter.--Remurmur (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, but that's a cleanup issue, not a reason for deletion. You're using the wrong forum here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Except the way to clean it up is to delete it, because it's redundant.--Remurmur (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are reliable source documenting the subject and the use of the term, then an article is fully warranted. Just because it is a non-English term or subject does not disqualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia. While this is an English language Wikipedia, that does not mean that the scope of our topics are limited to just the English language. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that the Japanese article, the one with a standing request to translate, has actual references, which is more than many ja.wiki articles. This creates the very strong presumption that reliable sources exist discussing this publisher term of art -- one that, because of adoption by English manga publishers is also becoming a term of art in the Anglosphere (though not as much as shounen or shoujo). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability, no reason given why this should be separate from Children's literature and Children's television series articles (or not be simply included in the manga and anime articles). Might as well write an English article titled Littérature d'enfance et de jeunesse to discuss the name and concept of children literature in French speaking countries, and repeat the same for all cultures. The name changes depending on the language, but the subject is essentially the same.--Boffob (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the evidence presented its a genre, and this is the recognized term for it. Though I do take Boffob's view into account. it seems reasonable to me that particularly stylized types of a national literature would have a distinctive name. DGG (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my main issue is the lack of sources. How do we know it's a recognized term and that it's separate enough from other cultures to warrant being out of children's lit, or why this tiny amount of material coudln't be included in manga and anime, if it's not all there already? There's not a single citation, thus no evidence of notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Manga - suggesting deletion because of Children's literature follows the same logic as deleting manga because it's literature or comics. Kodomo manga is an established style of manga, with differences vs. typical western kids' books and vs. adult manga, [for example]. The topic of the article is comparable to Shoujo manga. But what puzzles me most is that both manga doesn't have a list of genres, and a list or article genres of manga does not exist. MaxVT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kodomo and shoujo aren't genres, they're demographic labels -- descriptive of intended audience, not of content. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:42, 24 November 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.