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 merge to Mizuki Kawashita. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akane-chan Overdrive[edit]

Akane-chan Overdrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:Non-notable manga with no evidence that it has received any reviews or coverage by reliable sources. The article is nothing more then a plot summary. Normally I prefer to redirect this article to the author's page, but two attempts at redirecting the article was met with resistance be an obstinate editor who threatened admin action over the redirect.[1] Farix (Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Mizuki Kawashita; no evidence of independent notability. JJL (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per original attempts. Searches on the japanese title only return bookstores and a couple of blogs, and searches in english only reveal scanlation sites. Neither assert notability, and the scanlation sites are just plain illegal Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Mizuki Kawashita. I'm coming up bupkis on anything supporting notability of this one. (Who on earth thinks this has any shoujo elements at all? Well, apparently an original researcher with different googles on than I do.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was serialized in Margaret, which is a shōjo magazine. --03:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Way to make my head hurt.... —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge content, not just redirect and I resent farix' bad faith personal attacks on me just because I won't let him have his way against proper Wikipedia procedure. You know how Wikipedia works, shame on you. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk)

• Proper procedure actually suppports Farix's WP:Bold redirect, and his reasons for redirecting in the first place are quite valid. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. This article and AFD is clearly one such snowball. Yet your stubborn instances to ran through the process anyway is just a stall tactic. And your threats to call an admin if "process wasn't followed" is down right shameful. --Farix (Talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Snow bit is rather arrogant. Don't make such assumptions. Sure, it doesn't have a lot of active editors to notice and defend it, but doesn't mean your little gang is going to automatically have your way. I see this series listed on Amazon and it gets 205,000 hits when I Google, plus it was published in the most popular and influencial manga magazine there is. Notable enough to me, so I vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with this nonsense about having active editors to defend articles, people just aren't going to take you seriously with rubbish like this. The gang comment just shows you up even more then most of your questionable reasons for keeping articles. Google hits are irrelevant. Being on Amazon does not indicate notability, and Amazon should be used to demonstrate something exists, not as a reason for an article to exist (very big difference). Again, as has been demonstrated several times across several AfD's, although Shonen Jump is a very notable magazine, it's content is not automatically notable because of it. Naruto, Bleach and One Piece all proved their notability, they weren't suddenly notable because they were in Jump. The same goes for any other manga anthology magazine. Do us all a favor and actually learn how policy and guidelines affect how Wikipedia works and stop dismissing them just because you see yourself as some campaigner against established Wikipedia processes and experienced editors. It's all very tiresome. If you have a reason for keeping something that's your perogative, but you'll be taken more seriously if you drop some of this sillyness. You just appear to be defending lost causes most of the time with no attempt to seriously address the common issues. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Japanese wikipedia, being in Jump comic automatically makes something notable. It should be the same way here. Dream Focus (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a pretty bold claim to be making! Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia sets its own standards of inclusion. But the standards for one language doesn't transfer over to any of the other languages. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will be surprised how lax is the French Wikipedia but this is the English Wikipedia so we stick with it rules and guidelines. KrebMarkt 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mizuki Kawashita, with merge of basic publication info. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dandy Sephy, I posted on the Japanese wikipedia using Google translator not long ago, asking about a series nominated for deletion here. I was told since its in Jump, its automatically notable. And I have a reason for keeping something I believe should be in the encyclopedia, while a gang/group of people seem determined to erase them. And the same type of articles nominated for deletion, sometimes get deleted, sometimes do not, depending on who is around at the time to defend them. Wikipedia states its policies are a guideline, and use common sense. Its be great if we had a set rule of law for everything, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. You know plenty of articles exist that don't have notable third party references, but if you have a lot people there to protest, you don't nominate it for deletion. And when certain people seem to stick together and vote to delete something, and are all members of a task force, it seems like a gang to me. There is no possible reason to delete this article. You don't make the encyclopedia a better place by doing so, and the information here could be useful or interesting to someone. Dream Focus (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you not see my comment that the standards for inclusion differ from one language Wikipedia to another? And the English Wikipedia has a much stricter standard then most of the other Wikipedias. --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the policies differently, or do they just have less deletionists around? Just as no one bothers any of the articles related to Marvel or DC comics in the English speaking wikipedia, even those without any references at all, even for the most obscure insignificant of characters, no one bother the manga pages in the Japanese wikipedia. If you have a lot of fans around to defend it, it stays. Remember, things are done by consensus of whoever is around at the time, not by any set rules. Dream Focus (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how is this in process when process (WP:BEFORE) clearly states that AFD is not to be used for discussing redirects? So, there was a disagreement over whether the article should be redirected or not – it should be settled on the talk page or other places; but not at AFD. Neier (talk) 23:08, 5 February 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.