Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical Pokémon Journey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Pokémon Journey[edit]

Magical Pokémon Journey (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Searches into Google, Yahoo! and Bing yield nothing substantial, only places to purchase this manga and fan-based/user-generated websites. No mentions of reviews from reliable reporters or awards etc. In, addition, this manga does not have its own page on the Japanese Wikipedia. KirtZJ (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I found anything substantial to present, but there is a JAWP article ja:ポケットモンスター PiPiPi★アドベンチャー. Though through a quick skim JAWP actually has less content than in ENWP and zero sources. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Looking a bit down the AfD log and seems like nom just forgot to clear that last sentence when copying his similar nom from the similarly desolate Be a Master! Pokemon B & W (AfD), which actually has no JAWP article. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! - I found a mention book review in Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson. See Google Books PT685. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Corrected my reply as of 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One mention is hardly the significant coverage as stipulated at GNG. Show me how this topic is notable based on how the wikiproject selects articles for creation. The Japanese wiki search was an error on my part, even though that page is still in pretty bad shape. —KirtZMessage 12:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source does in fact contribute to the notability because it has Wikipedia:Significant coverage: Jason Thompson gives his opinion of the work and explains what he likes about it. The book is a collection of manga reviews and reviews do contribute to the notability of the works they are about. In fact, I shouldn't have called it a "mention"... I should have made clear what it really was (you can look at the source yourself and see what it has).
"Show me how this topic is notable based on how the wikiproject selects articles for creation." - KirtZ, all I need to do is show that this topic meets WP:GNG. The moment it meets GNG, it's notable, and the article is kept.
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your arguments over a single source and since I'm pretty sure you'll present the same argument if a single source surfaces for the other page, I'm not even gonna bother debating here. I can already see the "kept based on no consensus" vote showing up. —KirtZMessage 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be source #2: "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999. it says that Viz has released a press release but I'm not sure if this is a verbatim press release, or a new article based on it.
It is a good thing when one reliable source is found.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found source #2 "Viz Manga/Book News" (Archive). Anime News Network. November 12, 1999. is not a press release authored by Viz (it is a secondary source based on Viz's press release, rather than being a verbatim press release)
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Seems notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a typical notable manga article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except nothing suggests that it is. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Pokémon (manga) - The sources found above include one review and an announcement of the release, im not seeing any in depth coverage here. Normally when I think of notability in fiction I think of at least three or more reviews along with if possible some additional real world information through reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to the parent article for manga of the franchise As much as Thompson's review can be used for reception, it's not a sign of notability. As the aim of the book is to provide reviews (or at the least, comments) of more or less all manga released in english at the time of publication, it does not differentiate between notability or success. It's not any different from how Anime Encyclopaedia isn't a indication of notability, the scope is different but the basic idea is the same. Additionally. a news item based on a press release is no better than the original press release as notability evidence. Also, the existence of an article at Ja.Wiki is irrelevant as we can't use Wikipedia as a source anyway, therefore it has no bearing on the discussion. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "of more or less all manga released in english at the time of publication, it does not differentiate between notability or success" - One could say the same thing about a book of Roger Ebert's reviews or a book of reviews from any person who reviews feature films. The fact that it's a feature film at all is a "screen" of notability, and likewise with the fact that the manga have been deemed as commercially viable to translate for foreign audiences. The fact that a review published a reliable secondary source exists at all inherently adds notability. It is not analogous to an automated database such as IMDB or the ANN database. It is instead analogous to ANN's published reviews of manga: it makes a statement evaluating the series. Also consider the author of the review, Jason Thompson.
  • I am actually surprised that the Japanese Wikipedia userbase had not located significant magazines that regularly publish reviews of manga, analogous to American newspapers publishing feature film reviews, or a manga equivalent of Famitsu.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a write longer reply at first, but comparing feature films and manga is rather misguided, theatrical films are not short of professional reviewers, manga and anime are. This is a manga title and therefore should be judged as a manga. Comparisons with Ebert are rather silly, even taking into account Thompson's CV/Resume. The short answer is that a single review in Thompson's book (being the catalog of titles it is) is not enough to show notability. We need something in addition, and that would be the case even if we had a single magazine review.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone knows Japanese you could go to the Ja.Wiki page and use their sources. I don't know Japanese so I'm of no help in this regard. Psychotic Spartan 123 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with Sephy. Let me clarify one thing. The Japanese Wikipedia has zero sources. This is a Japanese manga. The reason I mentioned the Japanese Wiki in the first place was that I had hoped if an article existed there, then they might have found some kind of notability to warrant its existence. If you look at the article they created however, clearly they did not. A deletion and merge would be the best bet here. —KirtZMessage 13:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ja. Wiki is typically useless for helping with English articles. Even if they exist they tend not to have any sources at all and they have next to no process involved so articles tend to be basic (even major franchises can just end up being unverified lists). It should be checked but the assumption should always be that it won't be helpful until proven otherwise. You an certainly use it as a starting place in some cases, but only at the very start of research - it's a lot easier to research when you are checking information already available.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to they can summarize and include the info on Pokémon (manga) which its-self is lacking sources. As I said above I do not think this is notable, not for a stand alone article anyways as of yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magical_Pokémon_Journey&oldid=1138044851"