Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Eyes (manga)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue Eyes (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable manga. No reviews or scholarly discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to lack independent sources under English or Japanese names. Edward321 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - There are reviews at Mania.com, but I did not find anything else to show notability. – allen四names 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With only reviews from Mania.com, which are counted as one source, this doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a link to one of the Mania reviews. There are very few places that count as reliable sources that actually review any manga at all. It'd be pure insanity to rampage about mass deleting every single manga article on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt it would be "pure insanity to rampage about mass deleting every single manga article". But since no one here is doing or advocating that, rather irrelevant. More relevant is that if there are "very few places that [...] that actually review any manga at all", that is an agreement with the non-notability argument. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have you been the past year or two? A very large number of manga articles have been erased, based on the severely flawed notion that nothing is notable without getting two or more reviews, even if its a type of something that almost never gets reviewed at all. Thus the overwhelming majority of manga articles are vulnerable to deletion, different people making their rounds, and nominating one batch after another. Dream Focus 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, we seem to be in agreement that this article (we're not discussing anything else here) does not satisfy notability guidelines: the disagreement between us is that DF doesn't like the consequences. The place to get those guidelines changed is probably Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have you been the past year or two? A very large number of manga articles have been erased, based on the severely flawed notion that nothing is notable without getting two or more reviews, even if its a type of something that almost never gets reviewed at all. Thus the overwhelming majority of manga articles are vulnerable to deletion, different people making their rounds, and nominating one batch after another. Dream Focus 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt it would be "pure insanity to rampage about mass deleting every single manga article". But since no one here is doing or advocating that, rather irrelevant. More relevant is that if there are "very few places that [...] that actually review any manga at all", that is an agreement with the non-notability argument. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:13, 1 October 2010 (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.