Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-Girl (3rd 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A-Girl

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

This manga series has not received any significant coverage by reliable third-party sources that can be found. As such, it fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Even the direct-to-video film that was released lacks any coverage by reliable sources and fails WP:FILM. The "keep" comments in the two previous AfDs have all revolve around inheritance of notability from the manga's creator or its publisher. A Google search for potential sources have turned up nothing but mirrors of this article, illegal scanlations, or retailers.[1][2] —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I can see here are release dates, and no additional sources have been found. I thought about merging or redirecting this but the potential targets already have the release dates. Per WP:INHERITED the manga's author/publisher can not be a factor here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do have to kind of echo some of the comments at the prior AfD in that having an OVA is a sign of notability in and of itself, especially given the time period it was released. Animation of any kind was pretty expensive to make and that this had an OVA made almost 10 years after its initial release should support some notability itself. What I mean by this is that we should take into account that this was made prior to the advent of computer animation, which made it cheaper and easier to animate things. Prior to that it was extremely unlikely that anything other than the most popular series would gain an animated adaptation of any type and that this had an adaptation so long after its initial release is kind of a show of notability and it also implies that there should be coverage out there, so I would sort of hesitate in saying that it's completely non-notable. I'll try to get WP:ANIME in on this since they should have some people fluent in Japanese that can look for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely saying that we should keep this only because there's an OVA, just that this definitely gives off the impression that this is notable and that there are likely sources out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original story was 6 chapters long, which is really difficult to give it the benefit of the doubt with notability. I have to disagree with the comment about animation costs, it was an OVA which means it's animation quality (and thus it's expense) will be budgeted against expected sales (and with japanese anime vhs prices of the day they would be selling at very high prices). For a title that was not associated with an already acknowledged success it's budget would have been quite low. Not all OVA's were big budget or ways to get extra money out of established series. After finding no mention of the OVA under t's own name in the Anime Encyclopaedia, I had to dig a bit deeper. The OVA was actually released under the Margaret label as one part of a several video series. It's adaption into anime is more to do with it being a compact contained story that happened to be published in the same magazine as five other compact contained story and sold on its branding rather than individual content. I can't see how any of it can be notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An OVA adaptation is not an indicator of notability, especially given that the adaptation was produced in the 90s when just about anything was animated. This is why that era is well know for its glut of bad OVAs. Also, we judge notability primarily on coverage by third-party reliable sources and a few other factors listed in the subject specific notability guidelines (non-notable adaptations not being one of them). This article has been tag for lacking such for years. The only reason this article survived the previous AfDs was because of claims that it was "inherently notable". —Farix (t | c) 12:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable minor work. SephyTheThird (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cant find any results on three search engines (Google, Yahoo!, Bing) that give weight to this page's individual notability. However, since it is an '80's manga and a '90's (VHS) OVA, there might be some actual sources in printed magazine or newspaper form. However since I don't have access to any of those I can't provide any more input. At any rate, let this be the last time this page is AfDed. —KirtZ^Message 14:45, 15 February 2015 (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.