Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onani Master Kurosawa (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Onani Master Kurosawa}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onani Master Kurosawa (2nd nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Onani Master Kurosawa}})

Recreation of an article previously deleted under A7. However his time, i think a proper burial ceremony is warranted.

Rational for deletion: Fail our current inclusions guidelines either the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for books as a doujinshi available freely. The said 4 released [http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=33759 tankōbon] doesn't exist in Amazon Japan, the serialization publication is [http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?pubname=Weekly+Young+VIP very fishy] and icing on the cake there is no publisher mentioned anywhere for both. This constitutes a real verifiability issue. In term of coverage there is no entry for this series in the Japanese Wikipedia nor in Anime News Network users edited encyclopedia however it managed to have an [http://ja.uncyclopedia.info/wiki/%E3%82%AA%E3%83%8A%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E9%BB%92%E6%B2%A2 entry] in the Japanese Uncyclopedia.

I will gladly renounce to the whole burial ceremony and make full apologize if enough evidences of notability from reliable sources are provided. KrebMarkt 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• mangaupdates.com while probably the most extensive users edited manga bibliographical resource available in English isn't a RS as first it's user editable and second its contains links to websites hosting illegal scanlation.
• For those wanting to dig for possible evidences of notability, the [http://www.onamas.net/ Onani Master Kurosawa Official page] is probably a good starting point.

--KrebMarkt 09:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Dōjinshi (self published comics) are very rarely notable as they don't recieve coverage by reliable third-party source. Not only is Mangaupdates.com not a reliable source, it is also a website that engages in copyright violations and carries the work in violation of the creator's copyright by distributing illegal scanlations. In fact, I personally thing it should added to the blacklisted. —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mangaupdates.com itself does not distribute copyvio scanlations. It does, however, track and index scnaltions and the groups that do the actual copyright violations, so that they can be found. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Most manga, even those that have millions of copies of them sold[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Quest_Retsuden:_Roto_no_Monsh%C5%8D], don't get coverage anywhere. And do we doubt it was published in the magazine listed? Whether something is self published or published by someone else, shouldn't make any difference at all. Dream Focus 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, actually. I've never heard of this magazine -- which could just mean it started relatively recently -- and none of the Japanese pages I've looked at have mentioned any kind of serialization outside of the author's website. This would definitely be something requiring sourcing. It certainly seems to be one of the most successful web comics, and to have ancillary media; we don't have much consensus built for how to deal with these things, and they are even more poorly documented in reliable sources than ordinary manga, which makes it difficult to figure out how to proceed. Doceirias (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. – allen四names 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Hmm, it isn't a doujinshi, but a web comic. One successful enough to be adapted into...something with voice acting, anyway. I'm not sure that means there's sourcing enough to keep, but it is at least worth doing some digging. Doceirias (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• : Maybe a web comic that was successful for a doujinshi print run? That's an intriguing case anyway. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• ::There's also a novel? http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/4575236705?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP Doceirias (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• :::So that item is a novel? I was wondering too. Can give a look to [http://neetsha.com/inside/main.php?id=429 those] [http://neetsha.com/inside/main.php?id=809&story=1 two] from the publisher of print version. (I've yet to find evidences of the 4 volumes release) Thanks. --KrebMarkt 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Is it an anime also? They list voice actors and talk about the video. [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onamas.net%2F] I don't think this is a doujinshi, although some of the ads link to places that have those. Dream Focus 12:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:Google originally gives 3,870,000 results, but then when I check the last page it shows there are only 883. That is strange. On YouTube there are some surprisingly long bits, they showing pages of the manga, and then different voice actors reading the lines, acting the part. You can verify this does exist. Dream Focus 12:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep How notable is Weekly Young VIP? Did anyone search for that magazine in its Japanese name? I say keep, since if it wasn't notable, they wouldn't spend money having a dozen or so people hired as voice actors, and wouldn't go through the trouble of producing that many issues of it. Dream Focus 12:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:Comment I can't seem to find verification that Weekly Young VIP actually even exists. But I'm no master of searching in foreign languages... 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete completely unnotable doujinshi or web comic (which seems in dispute, making it hard to see how its even verifiable). Certainly has no significant coverage in any reliable source and even some unreliable ones. Wikipedia is not ere for self promotion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.