Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhD (manhwa)

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 Delete. This is another one of those strength of argument debates. It's important that merely pointing at "notability," and claiming that is existent can't exactly merit an article. Even more so, it is crucial to understand that if something doesn't have any coverage but made by a notable company, it belongs on the companies page. Unless, something can bring forth reason for a separate article, there is nothing for this to merit it's own article. Yanksox 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PhD (manhwa)

PhD (manhwa) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable comics. Doond 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep amazon has the PhD chronicles. will reference. possibly cleanup of main website as it is loads PhD site then redirects to a spyware site Mangecourt 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Published by TokyoPop. Notability is inherent in that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Tulkolahten 16:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article does not assert WP:Notability, notable publisher does not automatically confer notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (books) -- Chondrite 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Totally agree with Mangecourt and FrozenPurpleCube Doberdog 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Listing on amazon.com does not confer notability. Chondrite 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I googled "PhD: Phantasy Degree" and out of 42 Google pages and 419 wepages, I found the following listings.

The San Diego Public Library: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:AMH-LxRrO90J:www.sandiego.gov/public-library/pdf/newya0806.pdf+PhD+Phantasy+Degree&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=49

The Ossining Public Library (New York): http://www.ossininglibrary.org/teens/series.aspx.

Anime News Network: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=4900

Internet Book Database of Fiction: http://www.ibdof.com/IBDOF-book-detailedview.php?book_id=28909

School Library Journal: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6312459.html

Newsrama: http://www.newsarama.com/marketreport/apr06charts.html

The other sites are mostly online bookstores, personal blogs and manga/anime forums.

By the way, check out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Hunter . Just thought I'd let you guys know.

Doberdog 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment That is excellent research. What it seems to boil down to in regard to establishing notability:

• according to Newsarama.com that PhD volume I is estimated to have sold 1000 copies in April 2006, placing it at #100 in the list of "APRIL 2006 Top 100 Trade Paperback orders (estimates) from Diamond".
• It is included among School Library Journal's "Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers", but this is a trivial mention.

See also Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Hunter seems to have been based on google hits and notability of publisher, and that article should probably be renominated for deletion.

See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 "Plot summaries." The article consists entirely of Original research. Excluding the original research and rewriting the article based only on verified published works would reduce the article to a stub.

--Chondrite 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Commment: Thanks. With reagards to your comments:

I included the public school library listings to gauge how "Phd: Phantasy Degree" would fare against Wikipedia's threshold standards regarding availability in libraries {"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Threshold_standards ).

I think the problem of "Phd: Phantasy Degree" regarding plot summary has less to do with "original research", since the books themselves are the sources provided the author of the "Phd: Phantasy Degree" page included the ISBN number of said book. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources . Based on your comment, your argument would have been "Phd: Phantasy Degree" has no impact or historical significance to speak of to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

I included to the "Dragon Hunter" deletion page to show that Doond's metholodogy regarding criterias for non-notability (google hits) is dubious at best but I suppose you know that already. Of course, if there was a "Phd: Phantasy Degree" article or review out there in a legitimate / reputable webiste...particularly a manhwa / manga / comic book / Korean pop culture website...then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Doberdog 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Is it just me...or are we the only ones arguing about this?

Quite possibly. I suspect many of the pages about this manga would be in Korean, and the rest hard to find because there are a lot of ways to spell the title. I'm very comfortable relying on publication by Tokyopop in deciding to keep. They are the equivalent of a DC or a Marvel, any of whose titles or characters I'd be comfortable including without objection. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a reader unfamiliar with the subject, it is not clear to me whether the article is a straightforward description of the primary source (the work being described), or whether it includes original thought (interpretation/analysis). A reliable secondary source is preferable.
• With respect to WP:NOT, my argument is that the article does not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, does not mention the work's achievments, does not attempt to describe the work's impact or historical significance, and is only a description of the work's plot and characters.
• I disagree that any publisher automatically confers notability. Wikipedia is not a directory (e.g., of otherwise non-notable works that have been published by notable publishers). Each article must stand on it's own. "The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." See also: User:Uncle_G/On_notability.

--Chondrite 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly argree this article needs improvement, however, I can't understand a call for deletion. You may not consider the publisher a factor in notability, but when it comes to comic books and manga I do. Why? Because it's obvious to me that almost anything a Marvel, DC, or Tokyopop does is notable. Just like anything J. K. Rowling or Steven King writes is notable. FrozenPurpleCube 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be missing the point of WP:Notability, particularly that "notabiity is not subjective." Works of very notable authors (such as the ones you mentioned) are almost guaranteed to receive independent coverage, and that coverage is what establishes notability. The only way to write a good encyclopedia article on any subject is to base that article on multiple independent sources. In this particular case, PhD (manhwa) is written from an in-universe perspective, and it will not be possible to rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective without reliance on third-party sources (that do not seem to exist). Chondrite 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea that people write about something makes it notable is itself relying on a subjective judgement, so, no, I don't concur with your opinion since it seems inherently contradictory. You'd be much better off if you didn't try to make the argument that your reasoning wasn't subjective. Certainly not convincing in this case, where I'm saying notability comes through association (and you can't deny that people do write about Tokyopop or their other Manga). Now if you want to say "there should be some third party sources" well, that is itself a valid concern, though to me, I don't feel it is quite much of a problem. I believe it's important to look at the actual source first when it comes to things like the content of a book. The interpretation, impact, meaning, yes, that's third-party stuff (barring the rare director's commentary), but if you want to write about a book, you should be looking at the book. Or movie. Or TV series. This can be a fine line to walk, but hopefully you at least recognize the value of reading/viewing a given subject of an article. It's one thing to not expect people to come measure your shoe. It's another to not expect them to read a book. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The verifiable fact that multiple, independent, third-party sources have written about a subject in a non-trival way is not subjective. Your argument does not seem to be that the subject of PhD (manhwa) is notable, but rather seems to be that it does not need to be notable. This argument does not address the reason given for AfD nomination, nor is it consistent with Wikipedia policy or guideline. My opinion is unchanged: the article does not assert the notability of the subject and should be deleted. -- Chondrite 23:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That something is based off verifiable facts does not make the idea or even the perception of those sources as valuable in determining anything any less subjective. Even saying "This needs to be notable" is itself a subjective argument. This does not mean you don't have a good point, it means you are ruining it by trying to insist you're not being subjective when you clearly are. And you're wrong about my argument. I'm saying that I believe it is notable based on its publisher, and to overcome that you'd have to make an argument as to why it is not. You haven't done so. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a manga series like any other and so of course it deserves it's own page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.232.129 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's clear the article needs improvement but I don't see a problem with its lower visibility vs. other comics/manga. Lets say if we don't see some outside sources listed soon, maybe a few weeks... i will reconsider my view. MrMacMan 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of reliable third party coverage presented... --W.marsh 16:02, 6 December 2006 (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.