Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akkan Baby


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Akkan Baby

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm assuming my responsability as the one who tagged this article for not meeting any of our applicable inclusions guidelines in this case the General Notability Guideline and the Specific Notablity Guideline for Book in September 2009. Nine months later nothing changed and the recent article PROD by another editor was contested by an Ip without any reason or edit summary. To give a proper burial ceremony to this article and to say hello to WP:BEFORE, i'm pilling below all the findings that lead me to ask for Delete:
 * No relevant coverage found. Only links to illegal scanlation read online websites, download links, read through youtube and the likes.
 * No licensor found in English, French, German, Italian & Spanish.
 * No Ja wiki article.
 * English Scanlation was complete over 5 ago and did/does not generate big ripples within the fandom. KrebMarkt 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Article creator, most content edits contributor & depproder were duly notified of this AfD. --KrebMarkt 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a bot that does that automatically. Not a lot of contributors to this thing, and are any of them active?  I don't see you contacting people in other AFDs you have participated in, so this seems a bit odd.   D r e a m Focus  18:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I used bot only once to initiate AfD, all other times i did it all manually. Participating to an ongoing AfD and initiating one aren't the same thing at least for me. Per Good Faith, i consider that the AfD nominator has done some homeworks before initiating the AfD, including contacting relevant contributors to the nominated article. --KrebMarkt 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an okay but largely disposable manga, which is kinda startling considering the themes it raised -- but given that, I'm not surprised that it sank with barely a ripple. As KrebMarkt, I'm finding no reliable source coverage in languages I can read, and I'm only finding barest responses in Japanese blogs. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BK = Delete, though if anyone finds a couple reviews, I'll change that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No apparent coverage by reliable third-party sources. Article is fundamentally a plot summary with almost no real-world context. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE Being serialized in a magazine does not make something notable. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A manga magazine that's been around for 45 years, knows more about what is notable and what isn't than any of us do. This manga had a published run in Bessatsu Friend.  You use common sense, not just mindlessly follow the suggested guidelines.  These types of things aren't reviewed often, so you can't expect to find that.  Companies that own rival products aren't going to let their publications, be it newspaper or magazine, promote their competition.   D r e a m Focus  18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability can't be inherited and it's even more true for a manga serialized in magazine containing over 20 series. I really doubt publishers being more cluefull about what would be notable. In France we release 2x more novels titles than decade ago and yet the market sales remains the same as before. Cluefull i don't think so, trying to over-flood the market certainly with over 25 new or reprint manga hitting the store each week. --KrebMarkt 19:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, DF? What are you on about with the rival companies bit? It's coming in out of nowhere, without you connecting the dots. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the magazine editors being better judges than us of notability, yes, I would how they have a better chance of predicting what will be notable than I am -- but we here have an advantage over them -- it's called hindsight. If publishers were perfect guessers, there would be no need for remainder stores. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per KrebMarkt - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 30 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.