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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Days (manga)[edit]

Salad Days (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Author is unnotable per WP:BIO so there is no redirect target. Series does not even have an article at the Japan Wikipedia. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources found, just a single mention in passing in announcement about another of his works[1][2]. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "deproded. Spend years in a magazine read by millions, so its common sense notable" however, did not produce even a single reliable source to even validate the supposed run of the series (ANN Encyc is not RS) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If you believe a statement needs to be validated, then you tag and discuss it. Does anyone doubt the claim that it was in the magazine it is listed as being in, for that time period? If so, you could most likely just search the official website for it by its Japanese name, and find mention of it there. Dream Focus 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  [3] See how easy that is? The official website of the magazine, list its volumes there. Anyway, Keep, of course, since the magazine has a high circulation, it was in it, and it lasted a significant period of time which would not happen if the publishers of the magazine didn't think it was notable(and they certainly are better judges of something's notability than any of us). Dream Focus 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and is therefore not notable. A work's existence alone does NOT make it notable, nor does your continued presumption that it must have had a large number of readers or that the publishers thought it was "notable" by Wikipedia standards. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean notable by "Wikipedia standards" - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I wrote, thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, you're welcome. Remember, proper use of quotation marks is one of the cornerstones of good communication on the world wide web.:) - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One of the major Sunday titles of its era. The ANN entry links to an article about a book that should easily source that. Doceirias (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Query Is your above statement based on your real life professional "expertise"? --KrebMarkt 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you insinuating? The article references the assertion made. Talk about using quotation marks to make a question look like an insult... Doceirias (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologize if you read more in my query than what it is. My English really sucks. Back on the subject, i need clarification on the motive of your vote. If from your pro point of view this manga matter then it should be given according weight. --KrebMarkt 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Putting expertise in quotes implies that you don't believe I have expertise, or that my knowledge of the subject means what I've said is original research. Since I'm a translator and not a manga historian my professional point of view is not really relevant; certainly, I know enough about the history of manga to recognize the title as a major one, but I'm hardly the only person who knows the subject well here. The article I provided I link to and the book the article is about both provide ample evidence that the series is notable. Doceirias (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure you are not Patrick Nielsen Hayden rescuing James D. Nicoll from deletion but your insight is good enough for me. --KrebMarkt 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun link: Scare quotes#Usage. --Gwern (contribs) 17:00 14 November 2009 (GMT)

• Delete Insufficient coverage by reliable third-party sources means that it is unable to pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. If sufficient third-party sources are found, the article can be easily recreated. Remember that Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on the amount of coverage a topic has received. But inclusion is not based on popularity, age, size, or relationship to other subjects. —Farix (t | c) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm a little shocked to find myself agreeing with Dream Focus, but a manga running in one of the most notable anthologies with a readership of 2+ million, and making it to 18 collected volumes, is notable by any remotely reasonable definition. To put this into perspective, a very popular US title like X-Men might sell 70-80 thousand copies... this was read by thirty times that many people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No harm will come to this manga series if its article is deleted from WP and no benefit comes to it by there being an article on it here. WP exists for the benefit of its readers. Notice that because this article lacks secondary sources it is very uninteresting. All a person learns is that the series was published. If there were sources giving some interesting information about, for instance, people's reactions to the series or its effect on other manga then it might be worthwhile having an article. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep An 18 volume series that ran in a major manga magazine suggests that while we might not have many English language　sources there are likely sources to be found in Japan. My own feeling is that long running series in major Japanese magazines likely desreve an exception from the book notability guidelines. This would be worth discussing on the talk page of WP:BK. In any case, I recall that the now defunct online anime magazine EX ran summary's of the manga on occasions. One of them can be seen here[4]. SMimas (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article does not cite sources. If it did, perhaps I could be swayed to change my mind. JBsupreme (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Once again, I encourage people to look at the link I provide above; this series has a far better source than the vast majority of manga articles will ever have. The book mentioned in that article would not only demonstrate notability, it would allow the creation of an extensive and informative production section, well beyond what most articles are capable of creating. Doceirias (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Starblind and SMimas. Difficulty in accessing non-English-language sources doesn't indicate per se a lack of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Doceirias, Hallaballoo and others. Article needs work, but there's no deadline to that and enforcing one via AfD is bad form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Starblind puts it best. The volume of readers and length of run are a clear indications of notability. Sourcing may be more difficult due to the language barrier, but that is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (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.