Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umi no Misaki

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 redirect to Kou Fumizuki. Notability is not inherited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umi no Misaki[edit]

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

Disputed proposed deletion, my WP:BEFORE only turns up a couple of comic rankings, which do not assist the article in proving the topic meets WP:N or WP:BK. Malkinann (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since 2007 has been published in a notable magazine that has a circulation of 190,000. No magazine is going to review a rival magazine's manga, so you can't get any coverage of most things. Dream Focus 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why most manga reviews are in magazines that don't run manga themselves (and there are quite a few magazines that do this). —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of numbers See: WP: BIGNUMBER, and Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DF. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSE hits. --Gwern (contribs) 08:10 2 July 2010 (GMT)
Keep This is the current manga by Kou Fumizuki, the creator of the very successful Ai Yori Aoshi. It is most definitely notable. Marshall Stax (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Fumizuki "so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable", or that his "life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes"? (WP:BK#5). That seems to be the only case in which a work can inherit notability from an author. --Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malkinann, You forgot to mention you added this to the list:
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 09:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the note is common practice and could be considered a courtesy to other editors, but it is by no means required. If a discussion is added to a deletion list but the addition is not pointed out, and it bothers you, please feel free to add the note yourself, but there is no reason to specifically draw attention to it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you DreamFocus, I forgot. --Malkinann (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough evidence of Notability found. Fail WP:N & WP:BK. No licensor in English, French, Spanish, Italian & German. All i found is a licensor for Taiwan. I should repeat myself notability can't be inherited from the magazine to the Manga especially since there are over 20 manga serialized in the same magazine. Notability can't be inherited from its author save in very rare circumstances which the author doesn't meet at all. Keeping it based on shallow, unrecognized and "i like it" arguments will just give this article reprieve not guarantying that this article will be back to AfD for one more round. --KrebMarkt 09:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I love Kou Fumizuki's work, this one just isnt notable, not everything can be hits, just look at some of the non-notable works by the creator of Sailor moon. Since this manga is ongoing it might attract notability over time and the article could always be recreated later but for now it is a delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kou Fumizuki keeping article history in case the series becomes notable later on. Currently it fails Wikipedia's general and book inclusion guidelines and has received no significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The magazine or publisher of the series does not contribute anything towards the notability of the work nor is the author of such historical or cultural significances that all of their works are are subject of study and scholarship. —Farix (t | c) 17:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Farix. Edward321 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Farix's arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (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.