Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Epoch

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. By policy "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Although this article is over 9 months old and has been listed here for a week, not one single source has been provided to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:V. --JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Epoch

The article hardly passes Wikipedia's notability guideline, having no reliable sources, nor any referances at all for that matter, citing what little content is featured on the page. The crossover gets very little coverage on the Internet from third-party sources in general, and though both a G-search and Yahoo search brings up many results on "Cross Epoch", there are perhaps only one or two sites I've come across that aren't: forums; providing scanslations; or another Wikipedia page. The article itself is nothing but a character list anyway, and adding even a blow-by-blow, panel-by-panel plot summary would do very little to the article. In short, if no third-party source cared enough to publish this information, why should we? // DecaimientoPoético 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a source for the claim that "it may be animated, as stated at Anime Expo 2007" can be found. GlassCobra 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I shall say this, the article looks like crap. I think what's ruining it is that list of featured characters, maybe that list should be wasted and sources be placed. I don't know where legitimate references can be found though, I just did a google search and all I can find are forum-related sites. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if improved. Right now, there's no reason to keep it, but there should be enough to turn it into a serviceable stub. There was an article about the project's history in the Jump issue where it first appeared, which should provide a decent source and give some actual content to the article. Doceirias 04:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable manga. i ^said 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Unless this was a major undertaking by both authors and contains relevant OOU information accordingly. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now normally, since this is a oneshot, I would vote merge, but there is no suitable merge target because it's a crossover. And, since Cross Epoch was a collaboration between two of the world's most popular mangaka, Oda and Toriyama, if we're considering notability then I believe it passes with flying colors. So I suppose I vote keep, though it galls me slightly. If a good merge target can be thought of, then I'll go for that. --tjstrf talk 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A short crossover doesn't need it's own article. Takuthehedgehog 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete then? If it doesn't need "it's" own article then it should be merged/mentioned into the relevant articles instead. Kariteh 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim & Merge relevant parts into ~~main Dragon Ball Z and One Piece articles~~ Akira Toriyama and Eiichiro Oda. -- Jelly Soup 11:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is indeed terrible but thats because both us at the Dragon Ball Wikipoject and the One Piece Wikiproject havn't done a thing to make it better. The second problem is the fact that Its hard to get sources when I hasn't been released in English and the only information on the internet is forums. But I'm sure we can find some sources to but in the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because something (a game, a book, a movie) has not been released in English doesn't necessarily mean it's hard for someone to find information on the topic. I understand that it may be harder to find info on the topic using the Internet, but we don't exactly have to cite everything with URL links. Books (and sometimes the source material itself, in this case Cross Epoch) can be used as reliable sources as well. // DecaimientoPoético 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone own a Shonen Jump issue with Cross Epoch being featured in it? The ref could help the article, the other day I saw Neko Majin Z in (last month's?) U.S. Shonen Jump so you never know. It's not impossible for Cross Epoch either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Epoch hasn't been shown in Shonen Jump, just mentioned once. -- Jelly Soup 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom--$UIT 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add maintenance tags aside from that, change the featured character list into paragraphs. Obviously, Cross Epoch is notable but we definitely need trustworthy references and sourced citations. I'll see if I can look for the Cross Epoch scanlation in my computer files (again), it's in here somewhere, I just forgot what file I put it in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, official crossover between two monster hit manga, by the mangaka themselves; notable in spades. -- AvatarMN 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AvatarMN: it's an official crossover of two notable series, produced by two notable writers. Bondegezou 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is irrelevant because it doesn't give any reason to keep it: Notability is not inherited. Kariteh 17:06, 20 September 2007 (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.