Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure Kid


 * 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   no consensus. Shi meru  07:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Adventure Kid

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A search for reliable sources only comes up with a single review by Mania.com (formerly AnimeOnDVD) for the anime adaptation. One review is not enough to establish significant coverage. Article has been tagged for notability since October 2008 and retagged in December 2009 after an IP removed it without explanation. Article has been without a source since its creation. Neither the manga nor the anime adaptation pass the notability guidelines. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears in
 * "Manga: The Complete Guide" by Jason Thompson (2007) ISBN 0345485904
 * "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" by Jonathan Clements & Helen McCarthy (2006) ISBN 1933330104
 * "Eros in Hell: Sex, Blood and Madness in Japanese Cinema" by Jack Hunter (1998) ISBN 1871592933
 * 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment if deleted, it should redirect to the comic book author, as a valuable search term. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can notable books be cited as references then? I see that this is an old series, so reviews might be hard to come by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are citation templates specifically for books... like Cite book and alot of articles use dead-tree references. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Between Mania.com, The Anime Encyclopedia, and Eros in Hell, we've got three reliable source references/reviews with which to demonstrate notability. (Manga: The Complete Guide is also reliable, but cannot be used to assert notablity because it is not descriminative, as it attempted to cover all manga licensed in English as of publication; its summary is fair game for the reception section, though.) As such, either by way of the OVA adaptation or original manga we've got enough to pass WP:BK, and as such is a keeper. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd thought that The Anime Encyclopedia was also under the same restrictions as MTCG, where because it tries to be comprehensive, it cannot be used to add notability (although it can be used to add real-world commentary/facts)? --Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The description in the article (including the reviews) imply that TAE is not comprehensive -- covering "most of the famous anime" suggests there's editorial selectivity involved. I could be wrong about this, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per above, the delete arguement is that no third party references were found and there was only one review, so therefore it is non-notable. References have since as it appears to have been found, adding them in is another matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think Malkinann makes a very valid point. The Anime Encyclopedia does aim for comprehensiveness, with over 3,000 entries that "run the gamat from little-known gems to legendary classics". Its backmatter quotes multiple reviews noting how comprehensive it is. The same with Manga: The Complete Guide. While both are clearly reliable sources and useful for filling in an article, without other significant coverage, I think entries in these are no different from any other comprehensive directory and cannot, alone, establish notability. Nor can a single AoD review. In reading the Anime Encyclopedia entry for it, it does not give any indication of anything that would have made it particularly notable. It does note that it was heavily cut and released in the UK as Adventure Duo, however in searching for sources on that title, I could not find anything beyond the same AE entry. Also could not confirm it has any coverage in Eros in Hell, though Google Books has no preview pages (search on both titles came back no results, however). As such, this appears to fail WP:NF and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The FUTON bias seems to be in operation here, as this is a slightly older title. Wondering if nominator's WP:BEFORE extended to their copies of Newtype USA?  Without being able to assess the coverage of Adventure Kid in Eros in Hell or other offline sources, it's unlikely to show notability. --Malkinann (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 76.66.193.224 found notable coverage of this.  D r e a m Focus  02:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No notability has been established through the supporting ciations, as per User:AnmaFinotera comments. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2010 (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.