Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Devil (2nd nomination)

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. MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Devil

Defense Devil (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)

Despite the last AFD resulting as a keep, I believe there is no longer any justification in this article's notability. There were various sources brought up in the AFD last time which do not seem to be applicable, or were just not looked into deep enough at the time. For instance, the Issue #184 of the French Animeland magazine shows that the series received coverage in that issue, but it doesn't show what the coverage entailed, and there's no way to verify the contents of the issue. The next 5 links were for "web reviews", but when I went to the archived links, they didn't reveal any reviews. The next two links were from the "French manganews website", but you can see that these were user-submitted reviews, the first written by "Koiwai" and the second one by "Shaedhen", neither of whom seem to be affiliated with the website as part of an editorial staff or something like that. So then we get to the last link from a German animanga website, but even if this one review is notable, it alone certainly doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" stipulated by WP:GNG, and by extension, WP:BK. 十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --十八 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Fairly established Manga title, published by Shonen jump, Japans largest Manga publisher. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Sunday, actually. And just because it was in the magazine, doesn't mean it's independently notable.--十八 09:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While you're right that the Animeland web reviews don't seem to exist, the magazine review clearly exists (verified because it's on the official website) and would constitute some form of coverage considering that it was in a print magazine. (It's listed in the general "magazine" section along with interviews and other columns, so definitely not minor) The MangaNews reviewer names say "MN Team" on them and if you go on their profiles say "editor and columnist" and "MN columnist", so these are staff reviews. Manga Sanctuary contains several staff reviews. Planete BD has mini reviews. Splash Comics also has reviews. This should be enough to satisfy notability and all sources mentioned are considered reliable by the Anime and manga WikiProject's consensus. Lastly, just a sidenote (not targeted towards you personally Juhachi) that this project as a whole needs to start considering foreign licensing as an indicator of notability; when we see a series has been licensed in North America we usually consider it as notable because it has the heft of actual translation and publication behind it and resulting reviews, but because it's published in a foreign country who's language we can't read, we somehow consider it different even though the markets for anime and manga there are just as large, if bigger. (There's certainly an implicit anglophone bias) The fact that it was licensed in three different countries alone should be enough for notability. Of course AFD isn't a place to discuss policy, but I still wanted to bring this up. Opencooper (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what you are suggesting was at one time part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, with that page stating that a manga series should be considered notable if it had been licensed in at least two countries outside Japan. However, that was removed from the page when it was pointed out that a Wikiproject's guidelines can't really overrule the notability guidelines. I do think we are overly reliant on English-language sources for anime and manga articles, but I'm not sure there would be support for just giving works a pass if they have been licensed in several countries. Calathan (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the illuminating response Calathan. That explains a lot. You're right that a WikiProject can't really trump the actual notability guidelines. Still I'd hope that it could serve as a hint that the series could have coverage in non-English sources. I guess we just have to try to be more vigilant at AfD for that possibility. (Even here I wouldn't have thought to search for non-English coverage if the nominator hadn't brought it up from the previous discussion) Opencooper (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Opencooper. The French language sources are written by staff writers, and the French manga market is larger than the NA-one, so Opencooper's point about not discounting foreign language sources is especially correct in this case. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are a variety of reviews in French and German. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2016 (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.